You know, if you'd fart and hold your nose, you'd might think a bit clearer.
As it is, all of what you said is a lie.
You know, if you'd fart and hold your nose, you'd might think a bit clearer.
As it is, all of what you said is a lie.
God makes no exceptions, in a war, defending yourself is justified ONLY if you are attacked, in an invading war, the invading force is always offensive, never defensive.
And the rest i think i spoke to soon about, however, there are verses in the bible that explicitly states that a woman may not kill her husband under any circumstances.
However, since we agree on the outcome of that i see no reason to argue.
All morals are subjective, put you in another place and your morals will change wheter you believe it or not.
And morals, as a concept, is completely worhtless to govern a people since it IS subjective to everyone that has them.
I think i typed faster than i read, excuse me for that.
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Good to know. I'll save you a spot.
You don't have to, i'll be the first Jew in Valhall.
You will have to tell me where "To be honest, yes, i hate you and those like you, the hateful people who think they can get their way by terrorizing others, i hate you all." has anything to do with love.
Morals are neither subjective nor absolute in the ordinary sense. Morals come from what we are and reflect some of our highest nature. We are all the same and whether God created us in His Image or we created Him in ours is impossible for anybody at all to tell. But the notion that morals are some spurious random invention is utter garbage.
Originally posted by: Tab
So, it's objective then?
Morality is what happens when you are who you really are. It is not a codex or set of rules. Morality is what the God-man-interfaced does. It is being when there is no self.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Tab
So, it's objective then?
Morality is what happens when you are who you really are. It is not a codex or set of rules. Morality is what the God-man-interfaced does. It is being when there is no self.
Thank you for answering my question Jesus.
The emoticon is one that expresses confusion. Perhaps you could try putting your confusion in words.Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Tab
So, it's objective then?
Morality is what happens when you are who you really are. It is not a codex or set of rules. Morality is what the God-man-interfaced does. It is being when there is no self.
Thank you for answering my question Jesus.
What do you mean by morality is neither subjective or absolute? I know for something like the idea of sin to exsist, we would need to have a absolute morality. I find it somewhat entertaining that people say we're created in God's image. I would have to say if that's true, god encompasses all good and evil.
Basically, I don't understand what you're saying. It seems like you're telling me morality is subjective, but it's not?
Basically, I don't understand what you're saying. It seems like you're telling me morality is subjective, but it's not?
Do you have any statistics to back up the crap you are spouting? Where are the polls of the gay and lesbian communities indicating that a majority only want "the benefits" as opposed to full marriage?
And wouldn't this mean that if we removed all 'benefits' heterosexuals would stop getting married. He doesn't want to see that he is a bigot, but in this you can see that he is. Straight people have different motivations than gays. For one it's benefits and for the other love because one group is just no good.
=====================
Tab, what confuses you is so clear to me that it may be somewhat difficult for me to explain in that I may not really be able to see the source of your confusion. But I will try to explain. Ah, yes, perhaps like this: A saying: "A wolf raised among the sons of man remains a wolf." Or, you can take a beautiful puppy and create a vicious fighting dog. Between the domesticated wolf and the golden retriever are animals with a spectrum of behaviors, that can manifest over a range of expression, but none can be as vicious as a wolf or as tame as a dog no matter what environment you expose them to. But the domesticated dog is genetically bred to to be a loving companion. It's socialization skills with humans, already present in the wolf with with other wolves, have been enhanced. So although the normal condition of a dog is to be a dog, a dog can still be made somewhat vicious, but you will not see this much, for example, in a golden retriever. So if we lived in a world where everybody had a golden retriever and everybody beat it night and day we would see a world of very sick dogs, but we would never really know this because they would all be sick and we would never see their true nature. We would never see the beautiful animal that is buried deep within. Such animals would never reach their natural genetic potential or manifest their true nature.
It is just such a fate that has befallen man and the stick that beat him is the put down.
Alright, I'll do my best. I am just a lame 19 year old who lives with his parents, I move to the dorms tommarow! Whoohoo!
It seems like Moonbeam, is telling me that morality is pre-conditioned into us? If you're raised in a poor enviorment, you won't end up as a good person.
To me Morality is subjective, no one really has the same moral views on anything. No one's morals are better than anyone elses. It differs person to person. Though I am very much open to opinions on this issuse.
It seems like Moonbeam, is telling me that morality is pre-conditioned into us? If you're raised in a poor enviorment, you won't end up as a good person.
To me Morality is subjective, no one really has the same moral views on anything. No one's morals are better than anyone elses. It differs person to person. Though I am very much open to opinions on this issuse.
Originally posted by: Tab
So, basically yea... I have no idea how to express my confusion in words anymore....
Basically, Moonbeam is saying that man is inherently "good". A man in his purest state is inherently moral. Only through the harshness of fabricated modern society has man degenerated as a whole into a state of self hatred and evil.
In his second post Moonbeam makes the distinction between the wild (wolf) and the domestic (golden retriever). That is, the distinction between the beast and man. A wolf is vicious by nature, and no matter how much you subdue that wolf, it remains vicious. The golden retriever is loving and gentle, no matter how one supresses it.
(Note that I believe Moonbeam is mistaken, and that man is just as vicious as the wolf. The golden retriever is not man, in my opinion, but a man-made idealistic image of what man wishes he was.)
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: Tab
So, basically yea... I have no idea how to express my confusion in words anymore....
Basically, Moonbeam is saying that man is inherently "good". A man in his purest state is inherently moral. Only through the harshness of fabricated modern society has man degenerated as a whole into a state of self hatred and evil.
In his second post Moonbeam makes the distinction between the wild (wolf) and the domestic (golden retriever). That is, the distinction between the beast and man. A wolf is vicious by nature, and no matter how much you subdue that wolf, it remains vicious. The golden retriever is loving and gentle, no matter how one supresses it.
(Note that I believe Moonbeam is mistaken, and that man is just as vicious as the wolf. The golden retriever is not man, in my opinion, but a man-made idealistic image of what man wishes he was.)
As I said, in a world where everybody beat their dog you would never see a real retriever. Only those who know themselves know themselves and the knowledge can never be given.
Did you but suffer you would not suffer. A saying,,,,,attributed to Chirst.
This whole argument is gay. (no phun intended).
If gay's want to get married, so be it, let them get married. It would not hurt me, and it would not hurt other's...It's just an issue for people that have nothing else better to do to bitch about.
If gay's want to get married, so be it, let them get married. It would not hurt me, and it would not hurt other's...It's just an issue for people that have nothing else better to do to bitch about.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
I don't even see that as a valid argument, and I am a Christian. There is a big difference between a marriage under the eyes of the church and under the eyes of the law.
In the eyes of the religous, there should be no difference between a man and a woman legally married outside of the church, and a gay marriage outside of the church. By the church's standards, neither of those situations are valid marriages.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter