Originally posted by Gary
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostSo Gary is declaring things evil, but also calling himself a naturalist... the contradiction is comical.
Societies define morality. Societies are like herds. Herds make rules that are in the best interest of the herd. In an elephant herd, a lone male who attacks and kills the infant elephants will either be killed himself by the herd or kicked out of the herd. Setting rules for appropriate and inappropriate behavior in the herd is part of our evolutionary development. We don't need a god to do this. Gorillas, chimps, elephants, wolves, and many other species of animals have rules (morals) for the group.
Our current "herd" (the U.S, and the larger herd, western civilization) believes that the targeted killing of infants is immoral now and in the past. We don't need the permission of a god or of theists to make this rule (moral standard).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostI guess moral dilemmas don't exist in fundy atheist land. God should have just taken the children to heaven instead of having them die. Wait, if the little kids die, they do go to heaven, which is a better place than ancient times were to grow up in. The reason a mother shouldn't murder her baby is that the kid could have grown up to be a great christian. Murdering her baby would just ensure that she and the baby don't get any rewards in heaven. And denying the child the right to make their own choice.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mikeenders View PostSays who?? From what i see you like to make pronouncements not back them up. One child or 6 million Jews and multiple children and adults in gas chambers? Your own morality is skewed if you think that platitudes substitutes for ethics
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostOur current "herd" (the U.S, and the larger herd, western civilization) believes that the targeted killing of infants is immoral now and in the past. We don't need the permission of a god or of theists to make this rule (moral standard).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostAnd what is murder?
What is my definition of murder? Murder to me is the premeditated, targeted killing of any human being, committed in any circumstance other than self-defense (when one perceives the he is in immediate danger of grave bodily harm/death).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostVery sick, sadistic logic.If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostYour "herd" says it is immoral and wrong.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mikeenders View PostCircular. There have been "herds" that have considered the killing of children as justifiable therefore by your own rationale it can be moral (part of the rules) of a herd. So your problem is not that morality cannot be justified in killing in children but the idea of God making the determination rather than herds of men
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostPlease explain. Physical death is just an inconvenience in the Christian worldview. Sure it stinks, but everyone will be brought back to life in immortal bodies in the last days.
I see the logic in this statement and that of your statement as very similar and equally repugnant.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostAnother "herd" may now or in the past consider killing children as justifiable. That does not change the fact that my herd (and I) considers it unjustifiable and immoral. Objective morality, moral standards that never change, do not exist. Even the moral standards in the Bible have changed.If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View Post"If I blow up myself and all the people in this market, I will go to heaven and receive 70 virgins as a reward, and all these "wicked, sinners" will get their just reward in Hell."
I see the logic in this statement and that of your statement as very similar and equally repugnant.If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mikeenders View PostUnfortunately (for your argument) you don't get to choose my herd and in the past the herd was pretty universal on whatever God says is right. hence by the rule of the herd the Amakelites received a moral judgement ( don't complain - its your definition of morality that has hung itself).
Yes, by the moral standards of the Israelites, it was not immoral to slaughter the little children of other nations. But in my herd (and yours) it is, and I would say that the majority of people in our herd today would condemn as immoral the behavior of the ancient Israelites, regardless of the claim that they had received orders from a deity to commit this horrific crime.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostAnother "herd" may now or in the past consider killing children as justifiable. That does not change the fact that my herd (and I) considers it unjustifiable and immoral. Objective morality, moral standards that never change, do not exist. Even the moral standards in the Bible have changed.
Maybe you should go think about your arguments and come back when you are ready
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment