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.
Viz has proven in a multitude of posts he hasn't a clue about what constitutes morality.
Talk about the blind leading the blind....
Why? Because I don't agree with you? I will give you the same challenge. Please tell me WHY that is the case...not just your opinion of it. Are you able to coherently define morality without making an assumption?
It's not self-evident, though. You are making that assumption. You are saying that it's true because it's self-evident that it's true. Why? Because you just know!
You have yet to make the point of WHY it is the standard. Don't give me assumptions, give me facts.
I think I have made my point quite clearly. Others have made the same point even more clearly. I'm not going to keep answering the same question over and over.
You are a conservative Christian pastor. At this point I am reminded of that famous quote attributed to Upton Sinclair. There is nothing I could possibly say that would change your mind.
I think I have made my point quite clearly. Others have made the same point even more clearly. I'm not going to keep answering the same question over and over.
You are a conservative Christian pastor. At this point I am reminded of that famous quote attributed to Upton Sinclair. There is nothing I could possibly say that would change your mind.
Why? Because I don't agree with you? I will give you the same challenge. Please tell me WHY that is the case...not just your opinion of it. Are you able to coherently define morality without making an assumption?
If Mordant, TroutDude or I had supernatural powers to kill you or torture you for eternity after you die, would you believe us then? Is "obey, or else" the only legitimate "morality" in your mind?
I think I have made my point quite clearly. Others have made the same point even more clearly. I'm not going to keep answering the same question over and over.
You are a conservative Christian pastor. At this point I am reminded of that famous quote attributed to Upton Sinclair. There is nothing I could possibly say that would change your mind.
You've given us nothing other than your opinion of what morality is. I'm sorry, but you're begging the question. That is a logical fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
If Mordant, TroutDude or I had supernatural abilities to kill you or torture you for eternity after you die, would you believe us then? Is "obey, or else" the only legitimate "morality" in your mind?
No. And that's not why God gets to define morality. I've explained that to you and the others on this board many times....and you continue to harp on this silly strawman argument.
You've given us nothing other than your opinion of what morality is. I'm sorry, but you're begging the question. That is a logical fallacy.
No. And that's not why God gets to define morality. I've explained that to you and the others on this board many times....and you continue to harp on this silly strawman argument.
I actually think your answer is even more interesting. If I recall correctly it was because God made us, so it implied that the fundamental basis for morality is the "right to property", or more specifically, a Lockean view of property. That is, that a person ( or entity in this case) properly owns and controls itself, and by extension has a right to control the product of its labor.
The question I have is, why? Why should the right to property be viewed as a principle beyond God himself, legitimizing what, absent this justification, is clearly a collection of moral horrors that we would unambiguously condemn?
It strikes me as odd that you appeal not to the rightness or goodness of God, not to the omniscience of God, nor the omnipotence of God. You base God's supremacy in an Enlightenment era view of private property ownership. What makes that the appropriate foundation for morality?
I actually think your answer is even more interesting. If I recall correctly it was because God made us, so it implied that the fundamental basis for morality is the "right to property", or more specifically, a Lockean view of property. That is, that a person ( or entity in this case) properly owns and controls itself, and by extension has a right to control the product of its labor.
The question I have is, why? Why should the right to property be viewed as a principle beyond God himself, legitimizing what, absent this justification, is clearly a collection of moral horrors that we would unambiguously condemn?
It strikes me as odd that you appeal not to the rightness or goodness of God, not to the omniscience of God, nor the omnipotence of God. You base God's supremacy in an Enlightenment era view of private property ownership. What makes that the appropriate foundation for morality?
-NoCapo
The right to ownership is only one aspect of it. Not because he's mighty...but because he knows all. He has revealed what morality is based on his nature. It's moral because he is good and moral and he has revealed it to be good and moral.
The fact that human beings think they can define morality and condemn him is laughable. All you've got is your opinion of what good morality is. You have no authority to do so.
The right to ownership is only one aspect of it. Not because he's mighty...but because he knows all. He has revealed what morality is based on his nature. It's moral because he is good and moral and he has revealed it to be good and moral.
The fact that human beings think they can define morality and condemn him is laughable. All you've got is your opinion of what good morality is. You have no authority to do so.
The right to ownership is only one aspect of it. Not because he's mighty...but because he knows all. He has revealed what morality is based on his nature. It's moral because he is good and moral and he has revealed it to be good and moral.
The fact that human beings think they can define morality and condemn him is laughable. All you've got is your opinion of what good morality is. You have no authority to do so.
Sounds like more convenience on your part, as being the property of some supereme being seems appealing to you. Appealing in the sense that you don't have to be bothered with the hard work of thinking through complex moral choices, nor do you have to take personal responsibility for those choices. In the end..."don't blame me, thats what god said".
Its cheap, lazy, and lacking strength of character in my view.
Sounds like more convenience on your part, as being the property of some supereme being seems appealing to you. Appealing in the sense that you don't have to be bothered with the hard work of thinking through complex moral choices, nor do you have to take personal responsibility for those choices. In the end..."don't blame me, thats what god said".
Its cheap, lazy, and lacking strength of character in my view.
Amen.
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.
