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.
They are not the same thing. You really need to do some research before spouting off on this stuff.
What is this dodge? At least provide a direction towards what "research" you've done about how "Confederate slavery was bad, but Roman/Israelite slavery was good." The great deal of research I've done makes me think they were all-three reprehensible.
I think that cupper3 is saying he gets his morality from what he accepts (probably based on what he reasons and feels), like he thinks everyone else does.
The source is himself (based and nature and nurture) and you can either accept it or not. He likely believes that everyone relies on themselves (other others) for their thoughts and morality, regardless of whether they believe different.
If that is not acceptable to you, could you outline for us the "restrictive list" of sources you propose?
For example, if a tricked person believed their source was God, how would they tell that apart from their source being Satan? For example, some writing being inspired by Satan pretending it was God, a little bit of good for the greater evil. Eventually, everyone is the last filter; so their morality would be more directly traced to them and they would be responsible (as the most direct source of their morality).
Regarding that, I'd like to know where you choose to tell yourself that yours comes from?
I would think the question would be framed like this; pertaining to slavery, which has a higher moral position the Bible or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? The idea is to seek the more noble position concerning slavery here in the 21st Century based on the words in those books, and what those words say. There really isn't any argument about which book wins. If the Bible has gotten so archaic that it can no longer be held accountable for its own words, then what good is it as a moral guide? And that seems to be the only argument in support of the Bible; it's an old book and it doesn't really mean what it says, so really, deep down it has the higher moral standing.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,915,464 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
I think that cupper3 is saying he gets his morality from what he accepts (probably based on what he reasons and feels), like he thinks everyone else does.
The source is himself (based and nature and nurture) and you can either accept it or not. He likely believes that everyone relies on themselves (other others) for their thoughts and morality, regardless of whether they believe different.
If that is not acceptable to you, could you outline for us the "restrictive list" of sources you propose?
For example, if a tricked person believed their source was God, how would they tell that apart from their source being Satan? For example, some writing being inspired by Satan pretending it was God, a little bit of good for the greater evil. Eventually, everyone is the last filter; so their morality would be more directly traced to them and they would be responsible (as the most direct source of their morality).
Regarding that, I'd like to know where you choose to tell yourself that yours comes from?
I told him here, but he ignores it and keeps asking the same question.
True integrity is independent of any religion or ideology. Nor is it given by an external source. Anyone who needs a deity in order to form a moral standard is in no way a person of integrity or moral value. It says they base their actions on the whims of authority rather than principle. This even relates to whether Mark Twain or Paul are better moral figures. Twain and characters like Huck are more moral because they don't need a god to form a moral standard. Their moral foundation won't crumble at disbelieving in a deity. Real integrity is held steadfast no matter creed or religious belief. Twain possessed this. Paul didn't.
Moravians founded the towns of Bethlehem and Nazareth, PA, Bethlehem was the mercantile and textile bench of the two communities while Nazereth was the farming branch...This way they provided each other with necessities, food went to Bethlehem while textiles and goods went to Nazereth...A symbiosis if you will...This way they did not have to deal with the outside "English"...According to the old folks who grew up speaking German, German was the common means of communication as late as the 50s and 60s...
I think that cupper3 is saying he gets his morality from what he accepts (probably based on what he reasons and feels), like he thinks everyone else does.
The source is himself (based and nature and nurture) and you can either accept it or not. He likely believes that everyone relies on themselves (other others) for their thoughts and morality, regardless of whether they believe different.
If that is not acceptable to you, could you outline for us the "restrictive list" of sources you propose?
For example, if a tricked person believed their source was God, how would they tell that apart from their source being Satan? For example, some writing being inspired by Satan pretending it was God, a little bit of good for the greater evil. Eventually, everyone is the last filter; so their morality would be more directly traced to them and they would be responsible (as the most direct source of their morality).
Regarding that, I'd like to know where you choose to tell yourself that yours comes from?
So it's based on a subjective opinion. Using that source, how is it possible that cupper or anyone else can judge another person, or society?
Yet you seen perfectly content in being guided by writings from that time and place.
Amazing.
I don't need any one else to tell me that if I don't want something bad done to me, then I shouldn't do anything bad to someone else. Which is what four of the ten commandments are saying.
Funny that they forget other things I see as important to uphold morality. Like opposition to slavery or child abuse. No, your moral guidance is more concerned about statues, competing gods and kowtowing to the invisible and undefined.
Or do you get your morals elsewhere?
You are telling me that you recognize morality when you see it, or based on how you'd like to be treated?
What makes you feel that is an appropriate source of morality? What if someone were to disagree with you? Who is right?
So it's based on a subjective opinion. Using that source, how is it possible that cupper or anyone else can judge another person, or society?
Yeah, everybody knows you can't judge anyone or anything unless you use the Vizio-approved edition of the bible.
Then you can judge EVERYBODY and EVERYTHING!
YAY!!
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.
