Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
walker90234 wrote:@deathholydeath: technically if god exists outside of space and time that doesn't matter all that much.
Care to clarify that some?
God doesn't subscribe to a linear view of time. God is in all places and all things, and all TIMES at once. It's not that he knows what choice you're going to make, it's that you've already made your choice.
this is made considerably more complex in light of evidence of the existence of an 11-dimensional framework of existence. God would not simply have to be present during the whole time in your life, but at every variation in your life as well. So there are multiple choices, there are different time-lines where you've made alternate decisions, and others have made alternate decisions as well, which makes things nicely confusing from the everywhere-at-once theory.
It's for this reason that I feel god is nothing more than the set of laws governing the physics of our cosmos, and everything else comes therefrom..... I mean, amino acids, the building blocks of life--ones VERY similar to those found constituting our genetic material---have been found on meteorites, so it's nto inconceivable our entire solar system was seeded from without, and that life is in fact abundantly common in our cosmos.
15 successful trades as a buyer;
16 successful trades as a seller;
To glimpse the future, you must look to the past and understand it. Names may change, but human behavior repeats itself. Prophetic insight is nothing more than profound hindsight.
It doesn't matter how bloody far the apple falls from the tree. If the apple fell off of a Granny Smith, that apple is going to grow into a Granny bloody Smith. The only difference is whether that apple grows in the shade of the tree it fell from.
@Oranith: again, did you just completely disregard my post on the euthyphro dilemma earlier? it basically just disproves what you said. Divine command theory doesn't work.
walker90234 wrote:@deathholydeath: technically if god exists outside of space and time that doesn't matter all that much.
Care to clarify that some?
God doesn't subscribe to a linear view of time. God is in all places and all things, and all TIMES at once. It's not that he knows what choice you're going to make, it's that you've already made your choice.
I thought we were discussing Judeo-Christian religions, not pantheism.
At any rate, if that view is true, and "God" is in all places, times, things, etc, at once, then it means that "God" is in evil as well. Which means that "God" isn't all good.
Further, if God doesn't know what you're going to do, then he's not omniscient, and therefore not omnipotent.
And even if God doesn't perceive time in a linear fashion, --which has no bearing on his knowledge of events anyway--we do. So if we've already, in some sense, made the choice "before" we know it, we have no free will anyway.
Unless you're going to throw logic and the consequences of paradox out the window, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic.
Why does this remind me of a Star Trek: Next Generation episode......
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
walker90234 wrote:
@Oranith: again, did you just completely disregard my post on the euthyphro dilemma earlier? it basically just disproves what you said. Divine command theory doesn't work.
Its based on false premises.
You offer alternate options based on an unsecure set. Other options exist. Your error is making assumptions on the personality of God.
walker90234 wrote:Picking up the homosexuality part:
Right, so GENERALLY all of the morals in the bible are based around the idea that you shouldn't harm other people:
[snip]
NOW, the commandments about homosexuality; homosexuality does not harm anyone. If both parties consent, and it doesn't clash with the adultery law (which does harm people) then it doesn't cause harm.
Incorrect. ALL sexual relations outside a man wife partnership are against Gods will. This is why the fornicator and the homosexual offender are condemned equally. They are harmful in that they detract from the proper pattern of relationship set out for mankind.
Given one example as why. One can legislate equality but same sex parenting, example, has something missing. Kids needs a mother and a father.
walker90234 wrote:
As such it is one of the only laws in the bible which don't have a moral basis outside of it being commanded by God (sex outside of marriage, IN THE TIME THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN, was technically harmful, as since there was no reliable contraception (YAY! CONDOMS! ) sex generally lead to kids. Without being bound by marital law, a parent could easily abandon their partner and children, as such leaden to harm) and as such, the only reason behind it is divine command.
Actually there was contraception mentioned in the Old Testament.
walker90234 wrote:
So basically, the only logic behind homosexuality being wrong is because "God" (was written by men) said so. There's no other reason behind it.
Incorrect, but let us assume that your premis was correct and that the moral argument against homosexuality was arbitrary. You rely on this:
walker90234 wrote:
THE EUTHYPHRO DILLEMA:
Now, there are two options about morals:
1) God commands morals because they are right.
OR
2) Morals are right because God commands them.
Now, let's take a look at the first one:
If this is the case, then morals appear to be a force separate from god; if he follows the laws of morality in his commandments it stands to reason he didn't create them, and that they existed prior to the universe. As such, it would mean god hadn't created everything and wasn't all powerful. This is not the definition of God. there fore it cannot be the case.
Your analysis of point 1 doesn't add up.
For starters God transcends and embodies morality. As Jesus said 'I Am the Way the Truth and the Life'. There is a direct claim to embody those concepts.
Secondly if we take the concepts common to beliefs of a monotheistic deity, benign, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. Understanding this it is easy to see that an eternal and omniscient being will adopt the principles that define moral behaviour from the outset, from their inception.
When one analyses Jesus' claim that God embodies Truth this makes sense. An infinite benign God would have to.
walker90234 wrote:
THEREFORE we must choose option 2:
Therefore not necessary, but lets explore option 2 anyway, as an option.
walker90234 wrote:
If morals are moral because God commanded them, and that is the only reason they are moral (rather than being built on logic or existing separate to him) then we reach a problem. Because if morals are only moral because god commands them, whatever god commands automatically becomes moral. Now, why does god command such morals? They don't exist externally to him. He decides what they are with nothing external aiding or affecting his decision - its all on him. Now, since he has no reason or logic behind choosing the morals (as such would fall under option one and violate the definition of God) then it stands to reason that such decisions are ARBITRARY.
This is essentially true and fits in with the concepts explained above in answer to 1, its an confirmation of the amended analysis of point 1 rather than sets as an alternative to it.
walker90234 wrote:
Hence, all morals are simply the result of God's whim. Therefore, those morals for which we can find no reason for following OURSELVES beyond gods command, have no reason behind them apart from whimsy.
This is where you get it wrong. Assuming a God with the power to arbitrarily define moral or immoral action then you see a God that has the authority to do so.
If God says this is immoral 'because' the because is most likely to be a superior point of reasoning to that humans can achieve.
Your argument assumes there is a God, but forgets the known character of said God.
walker90234 wrote:
If you accept that There's no reason for following them. There is no more reason behind god saying homosexuality is wrong than there is reason behind me fancying a chicken sandwich for lunch,
There is more than a little difference, perhaps even an infinite difference between a human casual whim and the timeless reasoning of an infinite God.
Let us take an example. Take a baby born in Washington, as the baby was born in the US it is eligible to be President. So why not take the baby to the White House with a rattle and write policies on bits of paper where the rattle lands the policy is implemented. Such a child has no less right to be president than anyone else right?
This breaks down immediately when you consider the differences in level of authority. The President has the authority to make decisions at this level, the baby does not. Yet the President to baby analogy is much closer than the balance between the chicken sandwich liker and God.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/17 00:02:38
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic.
deathholydeath wrote:You must be 35 years of age to be president. So, the baby analogy is a little flawed-- it does have less right to be president than many others.
Not really the point. The idea is to highlight differences in authority, for a start the baby has not been elected either.
However there is a closer parallel between the baby and the president than there is between man and God. The difference between the finite and the infinite.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
walker90234 wrote:@deathholydeath: technically if god exists outside of space and time that doesn't matter all that much.
Care to clarify that some?
God doesn't subscribe to a linear view of time. God is in all places and all things, and all TIMES at once. It's not that he knows what choice you're going to make, it's that you've already made your choice.
this is made considerably more complex in light of evidence of the existence of an 11-dimensional framework of existence. God would not simply have to be present during the whole time in your life, but at every variation in your life as well. So there are multiple choices, there are different time-lines where you've made alternate decisions, and others have made alternate decisions as well, which makes things nicely confusing from the everywhere-at-once theory.
It's for this reason that I feel god is nothing more than the set of laws governing the physics of our cosmos, and everything else comes therefrom..... I mean, amino acids, the building blocks of life--ones VERY similar to those found constituting our genetic material---have been found on meteorites, so it's nto inconceivable our entire solar system was seeded from without, and that life is in fact abundantly common in our cosmos.
I answer your theory with a short version of the Fermi Paradox then, Where is is everyone?
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
@Oranith: again, did you just completely disregard my post on the euthyphro dilemma earlier? it basically just disproves what you said. Divine command theory doesn't work.
That was an interesting read. A little disappointing at parts, but still good. I'd prefer not to argue about it, since it's not really possible to tell. But there are a lot of things that, before you are born, make certain things "likely" to happen. Research regarding homosexuality is ongoing. The theory I support is that societal stress helps to cause homosexuality in an unborn baby and than we shouldn't base our standards in a secular country on a book written 2500 years ago(OT)
I am an atheist. I also disbelive in all forms of spirituality, the healing power of crystals and quackery in general.
It's all fiction and fairy tale as far as I'm concerned.
Religion often seems like a socially accepted form of insanity to me.
That being said, I feel people are free to believe whatever they want as long as they keep it to themselves and don't impose it on me or use it as an excuse to oppress/control others. Of course that is often where the trouble begins...
I'm an Atheist, but Space has a bit of what some might call "spirituality" to me. By that I mean there is nothing that creates a more profound sense of wonder and awe to me than the universe. How everything is under a set of rules (Physics) and simply how many undiscovered things lie out in the cosmos... I just can't imagine being religious when there is something that awesome out there.
The fact that something can be so random and yet so beautiful that it can produce something like Earth, or even Saturn or Jupiter, or even a floating rock in space, not to mention a star, is just infinitely more wonderful than any human Religion.
May the the blessings of His Grace the Emperor tumble down upon you like a golden fog. (Only a VERY select few will get this reference. And it's not from 40k. )
@Oranith: again, did you just completely disregard my post on the euthyphro dilemma earlier? it basically just disproves what you said. Divine command theory doesn't work.
That was an interesting read. A little disappointing at parts, but still good. I'd prefer not to argue about it, since it's not really possible to tell. But there are a lot of things that, before you are born, make certain things "likely" to happen. Research regarding homosexuality is ongoing. The theory I support is that societal stress helps to cause homosexuality in an unborn baby and than we shouldn't base our standards in a secular country on a book written 2500 years ago(OT)
Socieatal stress causes homosexuality?
I'm sorry but that's bs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:
Palindrome wrote:
I am an atheist. I also disbelive in all forms of spirituality, the healing power of crystals and quackery in general.
It's all fiction and fairy tale as far as I'm concerned.
Religion often seems like a socially accepted form of insanity to me.
That being said, I feel people are free to believe whatever they want as long as they keep it to themselves and don't impose it on me or use it as an excuse to oppress/control others. Of course that is often where the trouble begins...
So you never want to hear anyone's opinions on anything, ever? Good job you're not like those close-minded religious nuts...
Or you're only interested in peoples' opinions as long as they don't include the word "god"? That seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/17 03:42:34
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
Orlanth wrote: 3) Understand that the regulations against homosexual behaviour are not motivated by 'gay hate' and that determination of absolute morality is the rightful province of a just God.
This is achieved by understanding the spirit in which Gods laws are contained, a spirit of both judgement and mercy, with compassion at its core. Anyone making application of what God says any other way is missing the point.
4) Understand that reproduction isn't the only end acheived by human sexuality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Kids needs a mother and a father.
For existence. In it's upbringing, a kid has more than enough with a single parent.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/17 03:56:30
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
As a bi-sexual I don't much mind if religious people want to condom homosexual activity.
Sinfulness makes sex extra fun
I do find it infinitely funny that Christians cite the Jewish holy book to judge behaviour though. Jesus himself said "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath".
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
I won't argue about it in this thread. (My terminology and yours may also be slightly off) We're supposed to be talking about God or something. PM me if you want a good ole fashioned argument.
*throws down glove*
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/17 05:00:04
Homosexuality has been documented in animals. I don't see how it isn't naturally occurring, but what is and isn't natural is up for debate. Is being a foot or more taller than average natural? Or being born with mismatched eye colors? I think the norm only exists in nature in order for it to be deviated from.
I had a friend (now on my 'ignore list') who used to tell me homosexuals were actually pedophiles who tried to find a more 'acceptable' venue to feed their urges.
So me and my other friend started making similarly crazy theories about what was the cause. My favourite was about a as yet undiscovered particule, dubbed the homosexeutron, which was attracted to certain objects (WoW was on top of the list). When exposed to a large dose of homosexeutron, the logical processes of a human brain are affected, leading inevitably to the altered beleif that reproduction can only be acheived by sex with members of the same sex.
Seemed to me more reasonnable than ''homos are stealth pedos'', in all honesty.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/17 05:10:53
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
Kovnik Obama wrote:I had a friend (now on my 'ignore list') who used to tell me homosexuals were actually pedophiles who tried to find a more 'acceptable' venue to feed their urges.
You didn't have to watch the films in Health class?
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
@orlanth:
1) "Incorrect. ALL sexual relations outside a man wife partnership are against Gods will. This is why the fornicator and the homosexual offender are condemned equally. They are harmful in that they detract from the proper pattern of relationship set out for mankind."
Kovnik has already overturned your backup for this.
Hence as an argument it stands on its own.
Your reason why homosexuality is immoral is that they are against gods will. They disobey a 'proper pattern' that god has commanded.
Hence the only reason behind it is that god has commanded it. Divine command is the only reason behind it.
Hence:
"Incorrect, but let us assume that your premis was correct and that the moral argument against homosexuality was arbitrary."
is wrong. The moral argument against homosexuality is simply based on divine command.
2)"Your analysis of point 1 doesn't add up.
For starters God transcends and embodies morality. As Jesus said 'I Am the Way the Truth and the Life'. There is a direct claim to embody those concepts."
Okay, so all your saying is that morality cannot have existed before God, because he transcends it; I agreed with that, since he's omnipotent, he does' obey anything. He creates morality.
"Secondly if we take the concepts common to beliefs of a monotheistic deity, benign, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. Understanding this it is easy to see that an eternal and omniscient being will adopt the principles that define moral behaviour from the outset, from their inception. "
Okay, God has to adopt the principles of morality from the outset. However since these principles cannot have existed before him, he is simply adopting principles which he himself created. By worshipping god for being moral, we are simply worshipping his consistency.
C) "This is essentially true and fits in with the concepts explained above in answer to 1, its an confirmation of the amended analysis of point 1 rather than sets as an alternative to it. "
Ahem. I came up with point 2 first. Then you just reworded point 2. Mine doesn't fit in with yours, yours just rewords mine.
All I was saying in point 1 was that morality cannot have existed before God.
So in reality, we should have point 1) the option of morals existing before god (which i then disproved) its simply there for consistency.
and point 2) god created morals, and embodies the morals he created. Right, again, he's just being consistent.
D) "This is where you get it wrong. Assuming a God with the power to arbitrarily define moral or immoral action then you see a God that has the authority to do so.
If God says this is immoral 'because' the because is most likely to be a superior point of reasoning to that humans can achieve.
Your argument assumes there is a God, but forgets the known character of said God. "
Actually, the euthyphro dilemma is an argument AGAINST god, as it shows there is no such thing as a perfectly moral, omnipotent being (the two attributes are mutually exclusive) I just worded differently, because I preferred to pick up the religion vs. homosexuality debate rather than the does god exist debate.
Secondly, you say that because God is all powerful, he has the power to define morals, yes?
Right. So you're saying that power=morality. In that case, hitler was one of the most moral people on earth.
The president has the power to choose laws (in a roundabout way) does that make him a moral person? No, it just means he has the ability to define them, it doesn't automatically make them moral.
Authority =/= moral commands.
Hitler had the power and hence the authority to create laws in his country. Did that make him moral? No!
Colonel Gudaffi (not sure on spelling) had the authority as head of state to create laws. Did that make those laws moral? NO!
Yes, I know you are going to say that there are some leaders who did create moral laws, but thats not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that authority doesn't imply morality, not that the two are mutually exclusive. They are unrelated. You can be powerful without being moral.
Hence, God created morals. Arbritrarily. There was no reasoning behind it (god created the laws of logic (according to christainity), and therefore following them to a logical support of morality doesn't count as support for it; he is simply using the morals HE created to support the morals HE defined. Again, he is simply being consistent. Anything other than an arbitrary decision will violate his omnipotence.
Orlanth wrote:
3) Understand that the regulations against homosexual behaviour are not motivated by 'gay hate' and that determination of absolute morality is the rightful province of a just God.
This is achieved by understanding the spirit in which Gods laws are contained, a spirit of both judgement and mercy, with compassion at its core.
Anyone making application of what God says any other way is missing the point.
4) Understand that reproduction isn't the only end acheived by human sexuality.
It might help to read what Christianity thinks on this issue then, rather than desiring to assume that a negative opinion has special merit. Here let me help:
1 Corinthians 7: 1-6
Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
For existence. In it's upbringing, a kid has more than enough with a single parent.
Children are best raised by two parents of different genders. Even dogmatised adoption agencies understand and will insist on that for example, and is independent on any opinion on the sexuality of said parents.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
walker90234 wrote: @orlanth:
1) "Incorrect. ALL sexual relations outside a man wife partnership are against Gods will. This is why the fornicator and the homosexual offender are condemned equally. They are harmful in that they detract from the proper pattern of relationship set out for mankind."
Kovnik has already overturned your backup for this.
Hence as an argument it stands on its own.
Your reason why homosexuality is immoral is that they are against gods will. They disobey a 'proper pattern' that god has commanded.
Hence the only reason behind it is that god has commanded it. Divine command is the only reason behind it.
Hence:
"Incorrect, but let us assume that your premis was correct and that the moral argument against homosexuality was arbitrary."
is wrong. The moral argument against homosexuality is simply based on divine command.
"Kovnik has already overturned your backup for this". - How exactly?
"Your reason why homosexuality is immoral is that they are against gods will. " - Homosexuality must be seen in tandem with all other counts of sexual immorality, not in isolation.
"...is wrong. The moral argument against homosexuality is simply based on divine command." - It is divine command but it is not arbitrary, baseed on hard reason not a divine whim. Gods ideal is that people should choose a single partner, monogamy is desired as it prevents most of societal ills regarding from break up of partnerships including the pain of seperation/rejection, infidelity, breakup of parental homes etc. This is why Gods moral code on sexuality is single and emcompassing and anything but arbitrary. The law regarding homosexuality is but a part of that.
2)"Your analysis of point 1 doesn't add up.
For starters God transcends and embodies morality. As Jesus said 'I Am the Way the Truth and the Life'. There is a direct claim to embody those concepts."
Okay, so all your saying is that morality cannot have existed before God, because he transcends it; I agreed with that, since he's omnipotent, he does' obey anything. He creates morality.
God transcends all things, so that is nothing special. However as God is unchanging then His morality is eternal also. Either way its not relevant except as a pointer to the truth that God has moral authority.
"Secondly if we take the concepts common to beliefs of a monotheistic deity, benign, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. Understanding this it is easy to see that an eternal and omniscient being will adopt the principles that define moral behaviour from the outset, from their inception. "
Okay, God has to adopt the principles of morality from the outset. However since these principles cannot have existed before him, he is simply adopting principles which he himself created. By worshipping god for being moral, we are simply worshipping his consistency.
This is true. In fact Gods consistency is a factor worthy of worship. Were God inconsistent then He could not be trusted to save.
C) "This is essentially true and fits in with the concepts explained above in answer to 1, its an confirmation of the amended analysis of point 1 rather than sets as an alternative to it. "
Ahem. I came up with point 2 first. Then you just reworded point 2. Mine doesn't fit in with yours, yours just rewords mine.
So in reality, we should have point 1) the option of morals existing before god (which i then disproved) its simply there for consistency.
That would be true if they were consistently regulated but arbitrary by design, however they are not. They are both consistent and rational and therefore just.
Your argument assumes there is a God, but forgets the known character of said God. "
Far from forgeting it, a good theology is based on knowing God and His character, as reasonably far as God can be known by man. You forget that God is known to speak to His believers and answers prayer as much as He confirms His Word.
Actually, the euthyphro dilemma is an argument AGAINST god, as it shows there is no such thing as a perfectly moral, omnipotent being (the two attributes are mutually exclusive) I just worded differently, because I preferred to pick up the religion vs. homosexuality debate rather than the does god exist debate.
Well we claim there does happen to be such a thing as a perfect omnipotent being, which is the point of the faith to begin with.
I would like to see how an omnipotent God cannot be perfectly moral, but if you think that goes too far off tiopic we can let that slide.
Secondly, you say that because God is all powerful, he has the power to define morals, yes?
Right. So you're saying that power=morality. In that case, hitler was one of the most moral people on earth.
Nope. God is all seeing and wise and has the authority to define morals because He is a true judge.
Power comes with application, omniscience is the aspect of God that couiples with authority not power.
The president has the power to choose laws (in a roundabout way) does that make him a moral person? No, it just means he has the ability to define them, it doesn't automatically make them moral.
Authority =/= moral commands.
Hitler had the power and hence the authority to create laws in his country. Did that make him moral? No!
Colonel Gudaffi (not sure on spelling) had the authority as head of state to create laws. Did that make those laws moral? NO!
Yes, I know you are going to say that there are some leaders who did create moral laws, but thats not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that authority doesn't imply morality, not that the two are mutually exclusive. They are unrelated. You can be powerful without being moral.
All your above comments are compounding your misunderstanding explained above.
A better consideration would be if Hitler was omniscient and all understanding would he still choose to be evil? I cant answer that one, but its interesting enough. Often if one understands ones opponent one ceases to hate them.
Not relevant anyway as there is a huge girth between human authority and power and the divine.
Hence you draw conclusions on the authority of God without understanding Him. Frankly, that isn't helpful. You need to rethink what God is, or if you prefer at least what religious people claim He is under the context of their respective faiths before coming to those conclusions.
Without a correct starting reference point, error can be your only solution.
There was no reasoning behind it (god created the laws of logic (according to christainity), and therefore following them to a logical support of morality doesn't count as support for it; he is simply using the morals HE created to support the morals HE defined. Again, he is simply being consistent. Anything other than an arbitrary decision will violate his omnipotence.
Plenty of reasoning benefit it. Let me give you a single example to dispel the claim of none. God demands monogamous relationships because : reason 1 - It setsd a bad example of behaviour to other couples who may have children who suffer from the consequences of infidelity. This is real enough and played out time and time with many a broken home.
Gods laws on morality are strict because its a emotional issue with heavy consequences which therefore requires firm consistent guidance. This is a reason why the moral code is amongst the most stringent. Please note that in all cases where homosexuality is mentioned it is amongst a larger single moral code on sexual behaviour and relationships. The Bible does not in any part single out homosexuals, whether people who read the Bible do is another matter entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you wish to reply walker, please use the quotes function. It will make things much easier to read.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/18 19:43:55
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Children are best raised by two parents of different genders. Even dogmatised adoption agencies understand and will insist on that for example, and is independent on any opinion on the sexuality of said parents.
Do you have evidence to support this claim, or are you arguing from "the spirit" again?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Children are best raised by two parents of different genders. Even dogmatised adoption agencies understand and will insist on that for example, and is independent on any opinion on the sexuality of said parents.
Do you have evidence to support this claim, or are you arguing from "the spirit" again?
Yes, could we have some scientific polls and evidence for the claim that two same sex parents can't be as good as two different gender parents.
The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.
For starters God transcends and embodies morality. As Jesus said 'I Am the Way the Truth and the Life'. There is a direct claim to embody those concepts. Secondly if we take the concepts common to beliefs of a monotheistic deity, benign, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. Understanding this it is easy to see that an eternal and omniscient being will adopt the principles that define moral behaviour from the outset, from their inception.
When one analyses Jesus' claim that God embodies Truth this makes sense. An infinite benign God would have to.
You're not actually addressing the Euthyphro dilemma here, in fact you're ignoring the very thing that actually makes it a dilemma; that being a claim to embody moral truth.
When one claims that God embodies moral truth (using "embody" in a very broad sense), then he is either claiming to determine what morality is by way his decree, and command only what is moral. The latter is reasoned, the former is arbitrary, and neither can be true in any concurrent sense as they are contradictory. The confusion that results from this contradiction is evident in your own response, as you're discussing the "adoption" of principles that define moral behavior by a being that supposedly eternal and omniscient. If God is eternal and omniscient, and adopting principles of moral behavior, then God only commands what is good; in which case morality is independent of God and not embodied by Him (in a narrow sense), but determined by him. If God embodies moral truth (again, in a narrow sense), then he isn't adopting anything, rather he is pronouncing moral truth by decree; meaning his rules are essentially arbitrary.
If you're claiming that God embodies moral truth according to the narrow sense of "Embody", then you're also essentially claiming that His prohibition against homosexuality (or anything really) is arbitrary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/18 20:56:01
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
So you never want to hear anyone's opinions on anything, ever? Good job you're not like those close-minded religious nuts...
Or you're only interested in peoples' opinions as long as they don't include the word "god"? That seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction.
Not what I said at all.
If I choose to have a discussion of the subject such as when I enter a thread like this, etc. Then yes i respect your right to your opinion and expect to hear it.
My point was that I don't appreciate/tolerate you imposing your religious judgements on me or others in the real world, nor accept such individuals abusing any position of power/influence (politician, leader, boss, etc.) to do likewise.
I don't want you to tell me how to live my life any more then I would expect some stranger would want me to tell/enforce on them how to raise their kids the way I demand, etc.
Just because I based my life on a a fable of dubious origin which stated that a talking dinosaur decreed it was the proper way to do so doesnt mean anyone else cares, nor should I use that belief to harm/oppress others given the capacity to do so...
In short believe what ever the hell makes you happy, but don't use it as a tool to furtehr your own agenda or dominate/opress others, and if I see you doing it I'm going to tel you to feth off...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/18 23:02:43
) sex generally lead to kids. Without being bound by marital law, a parent could easily abandon their partner and children, as such leaden to harm) and as such, the only reason behind it is divine command.
)
