Who teaches better morals, St. Paul or Mark Twain? (punishment, virtual, theology)
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.
The irony here is that none of those things are Biblically immoral. They are only immoral because society has deemed them immoral - and only drugs is considered immoral enough to be considered a crime.
That is because as a social construct, a culture imposing its will is determining right and wrong, from its viewpoint.
From its viewpoint. But how about objectively? Does might make right?
Quote:
Can you elaborate how these would be immoral? And keep in mind we have specifically postulated only one entity, God is not involved here... Once you introduce God, you have two entities, one of which can impose its will arbitrarily on the other by the means of a massive power disparity, or exacly the situation you are decrying above.
Actually...God is involved here. God created the universe. He defined morality. He said those things were wrong. I cannot conceive of a universe that exists without a creator.
Quote:
This is a good point. So how would you define morality for a single entity? For example, that God. Before he created angels, the universe, mankind, when he was totally and utterly alone in the void, what morality bound Him? What could he do that was right or wrong?
I have no idea what he could have done. I do know that God is unable to sin. Perhaps that would mean that the Son was unable to rebel against the Father. They are one God, but 3 persons.
Quote:
I honestly can't think of any moral issue that has any meaning for a singular entity. Clearly honesty, kindness, fairness, property rights, none of these have any meaning in this case. the only thing you could maybe argue is that self harm is wrong, but why would it be? If there is only one entity, wouldn't whatever it thinks is right, be right? There is no one to gainsay it...
God has defined them as wrong.
Quote:
Again, you are assuming what you are trying to prove, that morality is objective. I would argue that wrong as well as right are in the eye of the beholder. If I can spread my point of view, then I have effectively decided morality...
-NoCapo
Did I miss your answer? Have you told me if torturing babies solely for personal pleasure is right or wrong? You've given me a couple of different answers that seem to contradict each other.
ok? What's your point? Do you believe they were following God's commands? If so....what specific commands of God were they following that told them to invade other countries and try to wipe out all the Jews?
From its viewpoint. But how about objectively? Does might make right?
Why I don't know ... does might make right? You should ask your God about that. You believe that he is the ultimate arbiter of morality and therefore unquestioningly correct in all of his actions - even the ones you would otherwise deem immoral.
WHICH, by the way, means that morality is very much subjective ... unless you think killing the first born of Egypt was somehow a moral act (even ignoring the fact that God hardened Pharaoh's heart just so Pharaoh wouldn't let the Hebrews go too soon - because God wanted time to deliver ALL of his plagues).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
He said those things were wrong. I cannot conceive of a universe that exists without a creator.
Umm, no .... God never said a peep about suicide, pornography, and drugs. Sorry.
As far as what you can or cannot conceive of, that does not change reality. I can't conceive the vast distances in the universe but things are still awfully far away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I have no idea what he could have done. I do know that God is unable to sin.
God is omnipotent therefore God could have done anything. Literally. Yet God has often chosen to commit acts of utter depravity - as if he just couldn't think of a better way to handle it. Apparently God never once bothered to think ahead three or four thousand years and wonder how his actions would be viewed by people in 2014.
No interpretation is necessary. It's what God has commanded. That's enough. The sad thing though, is that you cannot even account for morality....period. It's just your idea of what you like or not. If you don't think stealing is ok....so what? That's just your opinion. That has no bearing on anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
And you know this how?? What assurance do you have it is not the whim of man?You cannot account for the morality YOU espouse. It's just your idea of what you like or not from the Bible. I am a Christian, believe in God, and we disagree on what God has told us in the Bible . . . let alone commanded. So what makes YOUR view true and mine not true????
Ever intend to answer any questions or just keep asking asinine questions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Yet....if there is no way of defining morality and there is no absolute morality, all you've got is just anybody's opinion....as you have shown with the history of civilization. Using that....you have no objective way to measure whether Paul or Mark Twain was "more" moral. You might as well be asking what sleeps faster....Wednesday or Blue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Are you willing to concede the point that true morality can only come from God? Because if not....it's pretty much pointless to argue the specifics of it, because we'll get bogged down in pointless details.
You are conflating two separate issues, Vizio in a vain attempt to get atheists to say they believe in God. It is a fruitless exercise. True morality requires a purpose to human existence against which morality can be measured. That which is constructive to that purpose is moral. That which is destructive to that purpose is immoral. A purpose for human existence requires a God. Atheists will never acknowledge this.
But you are conflating that issue with defining WHAT those morals ARE and that is a different problem. That invariably involves human beings subjectively establishing them . . . even if only through the gullible process of believing our ignorant ancient ancestors had received them directly from God. You can NEVER get away from the subjectivity involved in establishing WHAT is moral, Vizio . . . which is why you refuse to answer ANY of my questions. I am Christian and believe in God . . . presumably what you want the atheists to agree to . . . but we disagree on what is moral using the Bible. How do you explain that?
From its viewpoint. But how about objectively? Does might make right?
That is the point, there is no objectively..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Actually...God is involved here. God created the universe. He defined morality. He said those things were wrong. I cannot conceive of a universe that exists without a creator.
I have no idea what he could have done. I do know that God is unable to sin. Perhaps that would mean that the Son was unable to rebel against the Father. They are one God, but 3 persons.
Ahh! So you are conceding that morality is restricted to interactions between persons. Like I said, I don't know that it is necessary, but I simply cannot come up with another alternative. Morality seems to make no sense in isolation, as you point out when you explicitly include God as a party to morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
God has defined them as wrong.
That misses the point of whether morality is a social construct, but your other answers apparently concede the point that multiple entities are necessary for the entire concept to have meaning. So we can agree that morality is a social construct, it is just in your formulation God is infinitely powerful and responsible for everything so we must all adopt his version of morality, either through persuasion or coercion. That is not inconsistent with my view at all, but then it becomes necessary to demonstrate the existence of a God, that your concept of god is the correct one, and that your understanding of what He wants is correct. You seem to have a lot on your plate there...
Otherwise, it makes more sense to deal with morality in terms of actual entities with whom we can interact. Individuals, cultures, nations, even religions are all social entities that shape our morality, your religion being just one of many...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Did I miss your answer? Have you told me if torturing babies solely for personal pleasure is right or wrong? You've given me a couple of different answers that seem to contradict each other.
Yes you have, quite willfully and intentionally, missed my answer several times. I believe that baby torture is wrong.
Why I don't know ... does might make right? You should ask your God about that. You believe that he is the ultimate arbiter of morality and therefore unquestioningly correct in all of his actions - even the ones you would otherwise deem immoral.
WHICH, by the way, means that morality is very much subjective ... unless you think killing the first born of Egypt was somehow a moral act (even ignoring the fact that God hardened Pharaoh's heart just so Pharaoh wouldn't let the Hebrews go too soon - because God wanted time to deliver ALL of his plagues).
Do you think God simply came upon this world and decided to take it over, declaring himself to be God? Does creation account for nothing? What's ironic is that the very questions you pose were answered by the apostle Paul in Romans 9. Just as a lump of clay is subject to the potter, we are subject to God--since he made us. He can do what he wants. Not because he's big, and tough..but because he created us.
Quote:
Umm, no .... God never said a peep about suicide, pornography, and drugs. Sorry.
As far as what you can or cannot conceive of, that does not change reality. I can't conceive the vast distances in the universe but things are still awfully far away.
murder, lust, addiction to wine....
Suppose pink unicorns come out of your posterior and they claim to be God. How about that? Let's argue from that scenario. Or should we instead only discuss things that are actually possible?
Quote:
God is omnipotent therefore God could have done anything. Literally.
Within his nature, yes. His nature is that he cannot sin.
Quote:
Yet God has often chosen to commit acts of utter depravity - as if he just couldn't think of a better way to handle it. Apparently God never once bothered to think ahead three or four thousand years and wonder how his actions would be viewed by people in 2014.
No. God has never committed acts of depravity. The year is irrelevant in judging it. Immorality is not dependent upon the year.
Ever intend to answer any questions or just keep asking asinine questions?
You are conflating two separate issues, Vizio in a vain attempt to get atheists to say they believe in God. It is a fruitless exercise. True morality requires a purpose to human existence against which morality can be measured. That which is constructive to that purpose is moral. That which is destructive to that purpose is immoral. A purpose for human existence requires a God. Atheists will never acknowledge this.
But you are conflating that issue with defining WHAT those morals ARE and that is a different problem. That invariably involves human beings subjectively establishing them . . . even if only through the gullible process of believing our ignorant ancient ancestors had received them directly from God. You can NEVER get away from the subjectivity involved in establishing WHAT is moral, Vizio . . . which is why you refuse to answer ANY of my questions. I am Christian and believe in God . . . presumably what you want the atheists to agree to . . . but we disagree on what is moral using the Bible. How do you explain that?
I actually agree with you except for one word. I would argue that True morality doesn't necessarily mean Objective morality. I do agree that Objective morality requires some yardstick against which it can be measured, I just don't agree with True = Objective...
Otherwise, a very good and sound post that makes perfect sense to me!
-NoCapo
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.
