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.
I am not asking you to suddenly adopt a theocratic view of society. But I am pointing out that simple human logic and human physiology does not account for morality. Is that elephant moral?
Perhaps. Elephants will, for example, protect their young even if doing so puts their own lives in jeopardy. So do humans, for the same reasons: love and affection/emotion/attachment, plus an instinct to protect the species.
But when we go out of our way to help someone else even to our own peril or at the very least, to our discomfort and inconvenience, we call it "moral." That's the only difference - what we call it. We don't call that elephant moral even though her reasons were exactly like ours.
From jeffbase:
Quote:
And some animals eat their young. Instinct and morality are not the same.
And some humans rape their young. You're correct. Instinct and morality are not the same. Indeed, it's what we call instinctively pro-species actions that are what we judge as moral; anti-species, and they're amoral. So the two are not the same; they are separated by language and judgment (as well as culture).
Ever wonder where people "learn" to become atheists?
Look no further than the christian bible. Seems there are 11 verses that are so compelling, that many who have actually READ the bible, see atheism as a viable non'belief.
Genesis 19:8
As a father of three daughters myself, I cannot imagine offering my daughters to get raped so that I could protect the strangers under my roof.
Exodus 21:20-21
This was a favorite verse of slave-owners during the period of slavery in our country. In fact, all of Exodus 21 talks about the rules for treating slaves.
Leviticus 25:44-45
This is another verse about slaves, but this one includes the children. According to God, it is okay to buy and sell children. So apparently, everybody today who is trying to raise awareness about the human trafficking of children just needs to shut up. Apparently, God’s in favor of it.
1 Peter 2:18
So if you are a slave, and your master beats you harshly, you should just accept it. After all, fear of your master is a good thing.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
So if a woman has pre-marital sex, she should be stoned. Other texts lay guilt on the man as well, but the guilty male gets less attention than the guilty female.
Deuteronomy 23:1
So if your penis is cut off or your balls are crushed, God does not accept your worship. God only accepts worship from people whose genitals are in good condition (minus the foreskin of course … that sort of mutilation is required by God).
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
So two men are fighting and a woman steps in to defend her man, and ends up grabbing the genitals of her husband’s opponent. Rather than discipline the men for fighting in the first place, the proper response in this case is to cut off the woman’s hand.
Leviticus 21:18-19
To approach God, you apparently had to be a perfect male specimen, with a working penis. Everybody else could not approach Him.
Leviticus 20:9
How is this even remotely justified? I don’t care if a kid cursed his parents with the worst curses ever uttered, does he deserve to get stoned to death for it?
2 Kings 2:23-24
Apparently, even though God doesn’t want people to worship him who are blind in one eye, or have a limb too long, or have eczema, He is a big fan of bald men!
Psalm 137:9
Happy? The word here could also be translated as “blessed.”
But try to picture the scene. Was this like baby piñata day?
Welcome to church, and enjoy your god-given blessings.
Perhaps. Elephants will, for example, protect their young even if doing so puts their own lives in jeopardy.
Is that morality? Or instinct?
Quote:
So do humans, for the same reasons: love and affection/emotion/attachment, plus an instinct to protect the species.
So are you saying that elephants experience love/emotion/attachment?
And are those things morality? If so...why?
Quote:
But when we go out of our way to help someone else even to our own peril or at the very least, to our discomfort and inconvenience, we call it "moral." That's the only difference - what we call it. We don't call that elephant moral even though her reasons were exactly like ours.
So...what of the animal that eats its young? Is human cannibalism now "moral" because an animal does it?
That doesn't show me a capability to have a moral compass outside of God. That shows me awareness of consequences and wanting to avoid them. Most ppl avoid violence. Most people don't want to get a physical fist fight. Because it's the moral thing to do right? No, non-Christians would avoid such things because they are unpleasant.
OTOH, I find mocking people to be immoral. Atheists don't. They even justify it as a good thing. Why? Because they enjoy it and there is no consequence involved.
History is ripe of people doing horrible acts. In the Roman era, citizens enjoyed watching Christians be eaten alive by lions for sport. In medevil times, man created all kinds of unique and vicious devices to inflict maximum torture on a person. Now you might say well we have evolved beyond that and are more moral and civilized, but is that really true? They were born with the same brain. Same capacity for logic and reason. What happened to their moral compass? And how is that any different than people enjoying a boxing or UFC fight or watching fake violence in a movie or tv show? We enjoy it, right?
I'm sure non-believers have good morals, but here's the problem. Their morals are all conditional, cultural and self centered based. As a Christian, the Holy Spirit has shown me how selfishness is a sin against God and how almost every action of a non-believer is selfish based. You help out at the soup kitchen. Hey that's great. Would you still do it if the homeless ppl spit in your face and called you names? I doubt many would!! A Christian would still want to help regardless of the condition.
And some animals eat their young. Instinct and morality are not the same.
I also do not think it is moral to make false accusations against others. That is in the OT as well but you have been very generous in the past with you false accusations. Something else I find immoral is bigotry, where one blames all members of a group or type for the words and actions of an individual and also only sees the bad and never the good of that group. Again you are make it very clear you are bigoted against those who think other than you do about god or religion.
I would like to see your proof that all Christians would still serve that person in the soup line and that no atheists would. Your hatred of atheism and atheists comes out on just about every post that you make. And don't throw out that I hate Christians or your God unless you can actually back that statement up. And not just use examples of those who are not atheists as your examples, I mean from me.
Also it would help you to read some of the studies done on animals so that you can actually know about the subject instead of putting them down as solely instinct driven. Rene Descartes was just as wrong when he thought they were just machines. Most animals do not eat their young by the way and will die defending them. And some humans have killed their young.
So are you saying that elephants experience love/emotion/attachment?
And are those things morality? If so...why?
So...what of the animal that eats its young? Is human cannibalism now "moral" because an animal does it?
Thank you for proving my point that there IS no "morality" except as we define with our own language. (Hence, no, actually no separation between an animal's actions for good or for ill, or a human's actions for good or for ill).
"Morality" is a concept we apply to actions that we, personally and/or due to our cultures (usually it is a combination), and fluidly based on the situation (which leaves "morality" as an actual concrete reality moot), decide upon. It can change. Definitely it changes by time period, by culture and by experience. This proves that it is a human language inventionand human fluid/changeable distinction.
Easy example: If we kill an innocent mewling baby it's "morally wrong." If we kill someone who is trying to harm our innocent mewling baby it's "morally right." It's still killing. You killed. Where's the "morality cutoff"? What if, even though you felt you needed to kill the home intruder who was trying to harm your baby, you enjoyed it just the teensiest little bit? Is it no longer moral, but now immoral? Or is it just "kinda" immoral or...? We make that judgment, not (an imaginary) God.
I looked up one of your examples, Deuteronomy 23:1. Apparently, this kind of mutilation was a common practice about people of that time. That was the culture. God created this law to strongly DISCOURAGE people from doing it. That's the main focus of the law.
If I were an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the universe, and I wanted to discourage people from cutting off other people's genitalia, I would say, simply and clearly: "Don't do that."
I would not say:
"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD. 2."No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD.…"
Presumably, being in "the assembly of the LORD" is a wonderful thing. Why should people who have suffered genital mutilation, or were born out of wedlock, or are 10th-generation descendants from people who were born out of wedlock, be excluded from the assembly of the LORD?
Sometimes, when something looks like duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it is because it is a duck. These passages of the Bible look like people making up rules and justifying these rules by saying that these are God's rules.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 04-28-2016 at 12:46 PM..
That doesn't show me a capability to have a moral compass outside of God. That shows me awareness of consequences and wanting to avoid them. Most ppl avoid violence. Most people don't want to get a physical fist fight. Because it's the moral thing to do right? No, non-Christians would avoid such things because they are unpleasant.
OTOH, I find mocking people to be immoral. Atheists don't. They even justify it as a good thing. Why? Because they enjoy it and there is no consequence involved.
History is ripe of people doing horrible acts. In the Roman era, citizens enjoyed watching Christians be eaten alive by lions for sport. In medevil times, man created all kinds of unique and vicious devices to inflict maximum torture on a person. Now you might say well we have evolved beyond that and are more moral and civilized, but is that really true? They were born with the same brain. Same capacity for logic and reason. What happened to their moral compass? And how is that any different than people enjoying a boxing or UFC fight or watching fake violence in a movie or tv show? We enjoy it, right?
I'm sure non-believers have good morals, but here's the problem. Their morals are all conditional, cultural and self centered based. As a Christian, the Holy Spirit has shown me how selfishness is a sin against God and how almost every action of a non-believer is selfish based. You help out at the soup kitchen. Hey that's great. Would you still do it if the homeless ppl spit in your face and called you names? I doubt many would!! A Christian would still want to help regardless of the condition.
Maybe I'm just being weird but I don't because it is unpleasant yes but not just physically but unpleasant for my psyche. Other than that one time my ex smacked my butt hard, I have never really hit anyone. I don't believe in smacking my dogs either when they do bad even lightly and my girl won't bite me back. The only real consequence of it is I couldn't live with myself if I did that. I don't believe in violence period. It is just not me. Playful punching with a boyfriend or something..sure but not seriously harming someone.
Depends on the nature of the mocking but they probably justify it as a good thing because they do not take life too seriously. It is usually one of either two things: the idea deserved to be mocked or they are just playing around.
Not commenting on the boxing cuz I hate that stuff but fake violence in a movie or TV show...you said it yourself it is fake. These are not real people but merely a representation of someone else's imagination put out for the world to see. Also personally when I am watching a TV show I admire, I do not enjoy the violence itself because again it's not in my nature (for instance I hate the home videos where the guy gets smacked in the nuts..I don't see how that's funny most of the time) but it goes with the storyline and the characters who get beat up are bad people. Usually the victory is that they suffer only enough damage to learn their lesson, unless they have murdered someone themselves there is no pleasure in seeing them get murdered and even then it's not sadistic pleasure but merely a victory in the fact that that person will not be able to hurt any of the other characters. This is really going far too seriously. I shouldn't have to explain a TV show.
Nope but that has nothing to do with being self centered. That is protecting your dignity which can be a very important concept for survival. If someone treats you bad, you do not go out of your way to help them. Even moreso that is not only doing a disservice to you but to others in the future, if you keep helping someone who does something bad they think they can get away with it. I know this very well. I used to be a pushover..not anymore or at least I strive not to be. Every human is selfish in a way so Christians are not exempt so there is nothing wrong to be that way sometimes and can actually be necessary (because in some cases I really think I care too much and probly helps my self esteem issues) as long as you are not harming someone who does not deserve it. In fact as I mentioned it is often the case that Christians can be MORE selfish because they help people to protect their soul from damnation and sometimes it requires hurting others. Telling people they will go to hell for being gay is not helping people. We mentioned this before dozens and dozens of times and you ignore the point.
Last edited by Nickchick; 04-28-2016 at 01:13 PM..
"and those who don't are screwed, and will spend eternity burning in hellfire. but God loves you!" southernbored 4:20
But he wants your money. Carlin 6:23
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.
(Hence, no, actually no separation between an animal's actions for good or for ill, or a human's actions for good or for ill).
