Who teaches better morals, St. Paul or Mark Twain? (evidence, demons, Old Testament)
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.
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.
In the context, you were arguing for morality being dependent upon 2 or more human beings. My position is that morality is dependent upon God declaring it.
Quote:
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...
Some things require more than 1 person, some don't.
Quote:
Yes you have, quite willfully and intentionally, missed my answer several times. I believe that baby torture is wrong.
Good to hear--as I've said before. But then, you also turn around and declare that if a more powerful society were to conquer our's that declared that it is good.....then it would depend on their system of morality.
So....your answer would be that torturing babies solely for personal pleasure is determined by the person or group that is in charge? Or is it ALWAYS wrong?
In the context, you were arguing for morality being dependent upon 2 or more human beings. My position is that morality is dependent upon God declaring it.
What you seem oblivious to, Vizio is that YOU can NOT establish OBJECTIVELY WHAT God has declared no matter what you claim.
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.
This is actually a position I find fascinating! It is the application of John Locke's concept of property rights coming about by the fruits of one's labor to theology. I am not sure I buy it though, because we do not grant absolute rights over one's progeny to parents. Children grow up to take part in our collective morality, likewise humanity ought to have a voice in our moral relationship to God, unless we go back to the power differential and might makes right...
What you seem oblivious to, Vizio is that YOU can NOT establish OBJECTIVELY WHAT God has declared no matter what you claim.
You're right. I can only read what he has said in his Word. I would hope you believe those words about yourself, as well. You don't get to determine what God has said.
In the context, you were arguing for morality being dependent upon 2 or more human beings. My position is that morality is dependent upon God declaring it.
No, no! I quite intentionally did not limit this to humans, I specified entities and persons. If there is a single person morality makes no sense. It is a useless concept, just like the idea of God, alone before the creation of anything having any interaction that can be judged morally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Some things require more than 1 person, some don't.
Backpedalling so soon? What morality makes sense when dealing with a single entity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Good to hear--as I've said before. But then, you also turn around and declare that if a more powerful society were to conquer our's that declared that it is good.....then it would depend on their system of morality.
So....your answer would be that torturing babies solely for personal pleasure is determined by the person or group that is in charge? Or is it ALWAYS wrong?
I will always believe it is wrong. Anything beyond that would require an absolute morality, which neither one of us truly believes in. Or are you willing to say that if God declared torturing babies solely for personal pleasure to be good, that God would be wrong? I know your cop-out, "God wouldn't do that!", but that is tantamount to admitting that if He did you would be forced to violate your own conscience and approve infant torture because of your religious dogma...
This is actually a position I find fascinating! It is the application of John Locke's concept of property rights coming about by the fruits of one's labor to theology. I am not sure I buy it though, because we do not grant absolute rights over one's progeny to parents. Children grow up to take part in our collective morality, likewise humanity ought to have a voice in our moral relationship to God, unless we go back to the power differential and might makes right...
-NoCapo
The difference, of course, is that I didn't "create" my kids. My wife and I conceived of them...using the method that God put in place. When the sperm fertilized the egg it was God that created life. We did not create the baby out of thin air. We do not hold property rights over them as our creation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
No, no! I quite intentionally did not limit this to humans, I specified entities and persons. If there is a single person morality makes no sense. It is a useless concept, just like the idea of God, alone before the creation of anything having any interaction that can be judged morally.
Backpedalling so soon? What morality makes sense when dealing with a single entity?
It's entirely possible I misunderstood your argument. I apologize. But even when there was only 1 being -- God.....morality existed within the Godhead.
Quote:
I will always believe it is wrong. Anything beyond that would require an absolute morality, which neither one of us truly believes in.
Why? If you believe morality is based on society's understanding....it would certainly be possible that it's moral -- if society decides it is. But since it's always wrong...that is one thing that is objectively wrong.
We've gotten past the hard part. Good to hear you believe in objective morality.
Quote:
Or are you willing to say that if God declared torturing babies solely for personal pleasure to be good, that God would be wrong? I know your cop-out, "God wouldn't do that!", but that is tantamount to admitting that if He did you would be forced to violate your own conscience and approve infant torture because of your religious dogma...
-NoCapo
God cannot sin. He would not command that. I'm sorry...I cannot conceive of such a thing.
It's entirely possible I misunderstood your argument. I apologize. But even when there was only 1 being -- God.....morality existed within the Godhead.
If what you were saying was something we could verify, then your version of morality is virtually identical with mine. The three persons of the Godhead, negotiated a consensus morality among themselves, and then by force imposed it on the rest of existence. subjective morality at its finest. We just disagree about the existence of the infinitely powerful triune being required to establish such an apparently (but not really) objective morality...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Why? If you believe morality is based on society's understanding....it would certainly be possible that it's moral -- if society decides it is. But since it's always wrong...that is one thing that is objectively wrong.
We've gotten past the hard part. Good to hear you believe in objective morality.
I get the idea that you are intentionally misrepresenting me here... That is certainly not what I said. I said I unequivocally hold it to be wrong. That says nothing about what others think. That is the whole point of subjectivity. I do not believe there is any evidence to support an objective morality, however if you think there is a logical flaw in what I have presented, I would appreciate you pointing it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
God cannot sin. He would not command that. I'm sorry...I cannot conceive of such a thing.
But if God commanded it, it wouldn't be a sin, unless you believe that the source of objective morality is higher than God. You can't use that to dodge the question. If God commanded it, would it be right? I have dealt very straightforwardly with your uncomfortable question, why are you dodging mine?
I know your cop-out, "God wouldn't do that!", but that is tantamount to admitting that if He did you would be forced to violate your own conscience and approve infant torture because of your religious dogma...
-NoCapo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
God cannot sin. He would not command that. I'm sorry...I cannot conceive of such a thing.
Ahem:
1 Samuel 15:3
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
1 Samuel 15:3
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
We've had this discussion before, and he differentiates between torture of infants for personal pleasure, and torture of infants at God's command as punishment for sin. The first is immoral, the second is moral, only God won't ever ask us to do that now, only in the past. That is why I specifically used his wording. I've been on this merry-go-round before...
We've had this discussion before, and he differentiates between torture of infants for personal pleasure, and torture of infants at God's command as punishment for sin. The first is immoral, the second is moral, only God won't ever ask us to do that now, only in the past. That is why I specifically used his wording. I've been on this merry-go-round before...
-NoCapo
We all have.
But Viz isn't ready for the grown-up rides.
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.
