Stuart Galbraith Posted March 26, 2023 Posted March 26, 2023 17 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said: Imposing ones sense of morality on another is not being moral. Morality, or lack thereof, is the product of personal decisions. No one has the high ground here. If that is the case, then why are the anti abortion crowd imposing their morality as if it is? If you believe its so moral, keep sending the message that it is, and people will inevitably accept it. You shouldnt have to ban it to make it a moral code they should keep, it should be self evident. Right?
Rick Posted March 26, 2023 Posted March 26, 2023 1 hour ago, Sardaukar said: True in many ways as an idea. But it'd be as relevant to quote Quran, Torah, Hindu scriptures etc. as Bible. All religions think they have The Truth™ My personal favourite from Bible is Matthew 10:34. Will have to honestly disagree with your second and third sentences because of John 3:16 and Revelation 21.
rmgill Posted March 26, 2023 Posted March 26, 2023 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: If that is the case, then why are the anti abortion crowd imposing their morality as if it is? Imagine if someone was going around and killing infants in the hospital. That'd be wrong right? Or would stopping that person be an imposition of morality? 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: If you believe its so moral, keep sending the message that it is, and people will inevitably accept it. You shouldnt have to ban it to make it a moral code they should keep, it should be self evident. Right? Well, I suppose that would fit the left's current mode of not going after violent criminals as a rule. No need to impose morality against murder eh? The problem is that you fail to see a fetus as a human life at all nor can you even accede to the view that the opponents of your dogma see it that way. You just view it as a morality problem for a set of morals you don't share.
Sardaukar Posted March 26, 2023 Posted March 26, 2023 3 hours ago, Rick said: Will have to honestly disagree with your second and third sentences because of John 3:16 and Revelation 21. But if I'd ask Jewish or Muslim person...answer would be different... See my point
Rick Posted March 26, 2023 Posted March 26, 2023 42 minutes ago, Sardaukar said: But if I'd ask Jewish or Muslim person...answer would be different... See my point Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: Nabeel Qureshi Jews for Jesus Videos and books for both.
Tim Sielbeck Posted March 26, 2023 Posted March 26, 2023 9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: If that is the case, then why are the anti abortion crowd imposing their morality as if it is? If you believe its so moral, keep sending the message that it is, and people will inevitably accept it. You shouldnt have to ban it to make it a moral code they should keep, it should be self evident. Right? Read the last sentence of my post again.
Sardaukar Posted March 27, 2023 Posted March 27, 2023 Problem with religions is that they are faith, not science etc. It'd be damn difficult to prove existence of god(s), especially since all religions seem to have quite differing idea about those supreme beings... And even in this topic, it is pretty clear that irony of True Faith™ is alive and well. Everyone claims to have that...thus, burden of proof is on believer. Also, in Western countries, it is easy to forget that majority of people on earth are not Christians...
rmgill Posted March 27, 2023 Posted March 27, 2023 11 minutes ago, Sardaukar said: Problem with religions is that they are faith, not science etc. It'd be damn difficult to prove existence of god(s), especially since all religions seem to have quite differing idea about those supreme beings... The same can be said of much of what the left clings to as science-ism. The 'it's just a clump of cells' argument itself is disingenuous after 5 weeks where organ/cns/circulatory development has started, it's no longer 'a clump of cells', but differentiated tissues and organs. 11 minutes ago, Sardaukar said: And even in this topic, it is pretty clear that irony of True Faith™ is alive and well. Everyone claims to have that...thus, burden of proof is on believer. Also, in Western countries, it is easy to forget that majority of people on earth are not Christians... I think here, considering the impact of killing a life, proof should weigh on the side of caution. Likewise, this is why I have a hard time with killing cetaceans as well as they have similar brain sophistication as humans. Likely the same should be said of the great apes.
Rick Posted March 27, 2023 Posted March 27, 2023 2 hours ago, Sardaukar said: Problem with religions is that they are faith, not science etc. This is not a negative but a positive. We can see how man has treated his fellow man by following "science." Only religion has the moral authority of making moral laws. And of the religions, only Christianity is the one that enables a personal relationship between God and man via Jesus, a personal relationship that you do not and cannot work for or achieve on your own, but only by the power and love of God and his gift to us via, again, Jesus. It'd be damn difficult to prove existence of god(s), especially since all religions seem to have quite differing idea about those supreme beings... Imo, it is quite easy to prove God. Just one easy example is Psalm 19:1 and the Book of Job. See also the Astronomical Stargazer Thread on this Grate Site. And even in this topic, it is pretty clear that irony of True Faith™ is alive and well. Everyone claims to have that...thus, burden of proof is on believer. Your right, it is. Also, in Western countries, it is easy to forget that majority of people on earth are not Christians... Could be, haven't looked. As a side note, ever notice how afraid secular governments are afraid of God and the terror they do to their citizens to suppress it?
Sardaukar Posted March 27, 2023 Posted March 27, 2023 "Only religion has moral authority to make moral laws." Wow...just wow... "Only religion has the moral authority of making moral laws. And of the religions, only Christianity is the one that enables a personal relationship between God and man via Jesus, a personal relationship that you do not and cannot work for or achieve on your own, but only by the power and love of God and his gift to us via, again, Jesus." Again...just wow... But...what if you are just wrong? And some other religion is right? Besides, it's not personal relationship between God and man if it's via Jesus... There is a middleman then...
BansheeOne Posted March 27, 2023 Posted March 27, 2023 33 minutes ago, Sardaukar said: Besides, it's not personal relationship between God and man if it's via Jesus... There is a middleman then... This discussion could be between a Sunni and Shi'ite muslim. 😁
Sardaukar Posted March 27, 2023 Posted March 27, 2023 3 minutes ago, BansheeOne said: This discussion could be between a Sunni and Shi'ite muslim. 😁 Definitely, though I am not as aware of intricacies between those two...apart that they hate each other lot more than different Christian groups (again apart from 30-yr-war...)
bojan Posted March 27, 2023 Posted March 27, 2023 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Sardaukar said: ...I am not as aware of intricacies between those two... Formally it was over Mohamed's succession, ended like soap opera family drama. Edited March 27, 2023 by bojan
Sardaukar Posted March 27, 2023 Posted March 27, 2023 Just now, bojan said: Formally it was over Mohamed's succession, ended like soap opera family drama. That I knew...just not why they went totally "ape-shit" over it later...
BansheeOne Posted March 27, 2023 Posted March 27, 2023 Hey, you're talking of the guys who last agreed on common leaders of which three out of four were murdered over clan issues. 😁 But I was going for the particular difference that in the Shi'a, scripture is supposed to be interpreted by mullahs while Sunnis believe that the faithful should need no intermediary with God.
Rick Posted March 27, 2023 Posted March 27, 2023 1 hour ago, Sardaukar said: "Only religion has moral authority to make moral laws." Wow...just wow... "Only religion has the moral authority of making moral laws. And of the religions, only Christianity is the one that enables a personal relationship between God and man via Jesus, a personal relationship that you do not and cannot work for or achieve on your own, but only by the power and love of God and his gift to us via, again, Jesus." Again...just wow... But...what if you are just wrong? And some other religion is right? Besides, it's not personal relationship between God and man if it's via Jesus... There is a middleman then... Wow is right. What basis can you base a moral law on if a higher authority than man does not exists? It would be whatever the current crop of lawyers and judges say it is and this said group could overturn and/or be overturned whenever the next fad of morality comes into existence. The U.S. federal abortion is a case in point. Afaik, all religions have certain moral laws pertaining to life and theft. Yet the there are secular laws that violate this such as Communist countries. Abortion and, imo, capital punishment are two, and government welfare is an example of theft. Look at the Ten Commandments and see how much better life would be if man would obey them. This is further fleshed out in Proverbs and Psalms. There is the personal relationship between man and God via Jesus. The Four Gospels spell this out. An earlier post gave the link to the Arab doctor who gave up on Allah and followed Jesus. There is also the group Jews for Jesus. There are also many books and videos of homosexuals, transgender individuals, former other religious followers, etc. who have given up on their failed, past lives and made their life better via Jesus. Read the Bible.
sunday Posted March 27, 2023 Posted March 27, 2023 (edited) It will be some kind of extraordinary faithful person one that does not think his religion is the true one. And if no person that confess a faith should be allowed to make laws, and pass them according to the legal framework of a country, what kind of country would be that? A country ruled by jungle law? A country ruled by secular humanism, 20th century Mexico-style? By a Totalitarian ideology, Commie Russia-, Khmer Cambodia- or North Korea-style? Edited March 27, 2023 by sunday
R011 Posted March 27, 2023 Posted March 27, 2023 25 minutes ago, Rick said: Wow is right. What basis can you base a moral law on if a higher authority than man does not exists? On the basis of consensus. If you need a book to tell you harming others is wrong, then there's something wrong with you. Society can only function at all because most people aren't sociopaths or narcissists.
Rick Posted March 27, 2023 Posted March 27, 2023 10 minutes ago, R011 said: On the basis of consensus. If you need a book to tell you harming others is wrong, then there's something wrong with you. Society can only function at all because most people aren't sociopaths or narcissists. Are not the Ten Commandants a good starting point for a consensus? What is the basis of this consensus and the degree one have to consent? Would someone want to live on the basis of consensus under Communism? The basis of consensus in Germany and Japan in the 1930's and 40's? The recent basis of consensus for the residents and businesses of Portland, Oregon and similar cities? If one does not "need a book to tell you harming others is wrong, then there's something wrong with you," why are there laws in every land describing just this? Jeremiah 31:33 and Hebrews 10:16 give a better an authentic answer.
rmgill Posted March 27, 2023 Posted March 27, 2023 2 hours ago, Sardaukar said: That I knew...just not why they went totally "ape-shit" over it later... This part of the family inherited more than that part of the family.... As far as religion goes, it certainly has a place in establishing morality. One best be ready to discuss why morality might work or not based on secular concepts as well. For example, one can easily note that a reason to NOT shtup someone else's wife is that he might get angry and kill you. That's entirely precautionary in nature. It also could be predicated on the wrongness of breaking up a family unit if there are kids involved. Suffice to say that basing moral arguments on religious arguments first might not be a bad starting place. Especially given that we've had thousands of years to establish why those rules kinda sorta worked. Throwing them out at the drop of a hat with a bit of new fangled technology, MIGHT not be the best idea. You may not realize what sorts of problems you're going to manifest by doing so.
sunday Posted March 27, 2023 Posted March 27, 2023 One of the first engineering principles, if it is not broken, then do not try to fix it. Even if it is only a bit broken.
R011 Posted March 28, 2023 Posted March 28, 2023 5 hours ago, Rick said: Are not the Ten Commandants a good starting point for a consensus? What is the basis of this consensus and the degree one have to consent? Would someone want to live on the basis of consensus under Communism? The basis of consensus in Germany and Japan in the 1930's and 40's? The recent basis of consensus for the residents and businesses of Portland, Oregon and similar cities? If one does not "need a book to tell you harming others is wrong, then there's something wrong with you," why are there laws in every land describing just this? Jeremiah 31:33 and Hebrews 10:16 give a better an authentic answer. There was and is consensus without them. Do note, by the way, that Germany was a a majority Christian country and most Nazis wer church going believers. They managed to find loopholes enough in the Commandments and CXhrist's words to justify genocide and othr crimes, often claiming to be doing God's work. As for why there are laws, some people do have something wrong with them and society needs to protect itself against them.
Stuart Galbraith Posted March 28, 2023 Posted March 28, 2023 6 hours ago, R011 said: There was and is consensus without them. Do note, by the way, that Germany was a a majority Christian country and most Nazis wer church going believers. They managed to find loopholes enough in the Commandments and CXhrist's words to justify genocide and othr crimes, often claiming to be doing God's work. As for why there are laws, some people do have something wrong with them and society needs to protect itself against them. 'Gott Mit Un's'. They carried that beltbuckle to every atrocity they ever made.
seahawk Posted March 28, 2023 Author Posted March 28, 2023 But the Nazis were Socialists, and as Rick already pointed out Socialism is against the Bible.
sunday Posted March 28, 2023 Posted March 28, 2023 8 hours ago, R011 said: There was and is consensus without them. Do note, by the way, that Germany was a a majority Christian country and most Nazis wer church going believers. They managed to find loopholes enough in the Commandments and CXhrist's words to justify genocide and othr crimes, often claiming to be doing God's work. As for why there are laws, some people do have something wrong with them and society needs to protect itself against them. Not all Christians, and especially not all Christian churches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now