Lost your password? Questions? Email admin @ theologyweb.com
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Yes, I did say that, and I also said that divine law need have nothing to do with it but rather that morals are based on sound reason and logic based on experience. So, if you agree that a moral against stealing is in the best interests of society and ergo in the best interests of the members thereof based simply upon sound reason and logic, then the idea that they need be objective realities, decrees sent down from god is a flawed argument.
So, do you agree that a moral against theft is in the best interests of human society?
So you are saying two different things? 1. Morals are based on what is "good" for the society no matter what anyone thinks. and 2. Morals are based on sound reason and logic based on experience?
#2 would depend on what people think and would contradict #1.
So you are saying two different things? 1. Morals are based on what is "good" for the society no matter what anyone thinks. and 2. Morals are based on sound reason and logic based on experience?
#2 would depend on what people think and would contradict #1.
Because Jim, that is what we were designed for. And we we work as we are designed there is harmony and peace, genuine brotherhood.
Yes, I understand that you believe we were designed, but my question was in what sense are certain morally based behaviors in the best interests of society, and your answer seems to be that moral behaviors are in our best interests because adherence to them makes for a more harmonious and peaceful society. Do I have that right?
So you are saying two different things? 1. Morals are based on what is "good" for the society no matter what anyone thinks. and 2. Morals are based on sound reason and logic based on experience?
Don't think that it isn't noticed that instead of answering the question Sparko, you just ignore it and ask another question.
#2 would depend on what people think and would contradict #1.
No #2 doesn't contradict #1. How you came to that conclusion I have no idea. Perhaps you could explain the contradiction that you see?
Which is it?
See above. Now how about just answering the question. Do you agree that adherence to the moral "thou shalt not steal" is in the best interests of human society?
Nonsense Tass, if some Christian group starting teaching that adultery was a moral good, and you pointed to them to show an example of moral disagreement with Christians I would go back to scripture.
On what grounds would you assume that your interpretation of scripture is the correct one? Other Christians understand it differently...why are they wrong and you right? Your problem is that there can be no way to resolve conflicts about moral issues when contradictory biblical interpretations demand absolute adherence.
Men have biases and will ignore Scripture when it suits them.
Again Tass, the Pew poll was not a universal poll (US Christians only), and the same poll showed that the majority Christian who went to church or studied the bible once a week or more did believe that homosexuality was sin. So it is the Biblically illiterate that think otherwise. In other words those who take their faith more seriously, by a large margin, believe that homosexuality is immoral: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-la...homosexuality/
On what grounds would you assume that your interpretation of scripture is the correct one? Other Christians understand it differently...why are they wrong and you right? Your problem is that there can be no way to resolve conflicts about moral issues when contradictory biblical interpretations demand absolute adherence.
So if a group of Christians began saying that adultery if a moral good, you would see that as a valid interpretation of the command that thou shall not commit adultery? Really Tass?
The point in the Pew poll Tass is that the majority of those who study and know Scripture better believe that homosexuality is immoral, it is the Biblically illiterate that disagree.
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
Yes, I understand that you believe we were designed, but my question was in what sense are certain morally based behaviors in the best interests of society, and your answer seems to be that moral behaviors are in our best interests because adherence to them makes for a more harmonious and peaceful society. Do I have that right?
Except my whole model for a more harmonious and peaceful society depends on us first loving and obeying God. And such a society is merely the byproduct of our love for God. Knowing and loving God is the paramount consideration, societal harmony is a secondary consideration.
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
Don't think that it isn't noticed that instead of answering the question Sparko, you just ignore it and ask another question.
No #2 doesn't contradict #1. How you came to that conclusion I have no idea. Perhaps you could explain the contradiction that you see?
See above. Now how about just answering the question. Do you agree that adherence to the moral "thou shalt not steal" is in the best interests of human society?
I did tell you how they contradicted each other.
#1 says that morals don't depend on what other people think or believe. #2 says that they are determined by what people think and believe (sound reasoning and logic)
I can't answer your other questions until you settle on a consistent theory of morality, not some hodgepodge of conflicting statements.
Except my whole model for a more harmonious and peaceful society depends on us first loving and obeying God. And such a society is merely the byproduct of our love for God. Knowing and loving God is the paramount consideration, societal harmony is a secondary consideration.
You're obfuscating seer. Secondary or not, why does the adherence to morals in and of themselves make for a more harmonious and peaceful society?
#1 says that morals don't depend on what other people think or believe. #2 says that they are determined by what people think and believe (sound reasoning and logic)
What is good for, or what is in the best interests of society, is not dependent upon what people believe, though what people believe may or may not be in agreement with what is good for, or what is in the best interests of society. That people can either be in error or in agreement with facts does not contradict the facts themselves.
I can't answer your other questions until you settle on a consistent theory of morality, not some hodgepodge of conflicting statements.
Yes you can answer if you want to, I can only assume that you refuse to answer because you know the answer destroys your argument regarding the necessity of the existence of objective divine moral laws.
You're obfuscating seer. Secondary or not, why does the adherence to morals in and of themselves make for a more harmonious and peaceful society?
No way I'm obfuscating Jim, you can't have harmony without common moral beliefs, and you can't have common moral beliefs without an objective source and authority for those beliefs. As long as you have different moral opinions about things like gay marriage, abortion, promiscuity, etc.. the role of government, differing religions or political theories you will have disharmony.
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
What is good for, or what is in the best interests of society, is not dependent upon what people believe, though what people believe may or may not be in agreement with what is good for, or what is in the best interests of society. That people can either be in error or in agreement with facts does not contradict the facts themselves.
So you are saying that #1 is the way it is, that morality is not based on what people believe? Because if that is true, then it doesn't matter if they are in agreement sometimes or not, right? And how do you determine if they ARE in agreement if it doesn't depend on what people believe? What standard do you use to judge if it is in the "best" interest of society? You would have to use a standard of "best" that did not depend on what people believed or thought. So tell me what this objective standard is.
Yes you can answer if you want to, I can only assume that you refuse to answer because you know the answer destroys your argument regarding the necessity of the existence of objective divine moral laws.
I can't answer because 1. Your view of morality doesn't make any sense. 2. Under your theory of morality it doesn't matter what I believe anyway and 3. I forgot what you even asked me.
Comment