Ok I think we are talking about different things.
But I think I understand what you are looking for.
You want an objective moral code? Here it is:
1. Do not harm life in any form.
The details are subjective just like the 10 commandments. They are subjective interpretation of the moral code above.
Holding the truth do not harm life in any form as an objective moral standard is not a bad place to start. At a minimum it would allow you to compare that standard to other possible objective truths and extrapolate it into a hypothetical future. The details, however, are not subjective. They are deterministic required details needed to instantiate the objective truth across a changing temporal landscape. Thus they are logically derivable from the objective truth. Unless God comes back and updates the details, the laws in the scriptures are subjective and wrong because they violate the objective moral code above.
Let's look at an objective moral claim in the Torah or Old Testament of the Bible. Both Christians and Jews agree on this. Christianity: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12) Judaism: Hillel the Elder "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." - Hillel the Elder Thus we are told that the fundamental objective moral principle the foundation of the entire set of laws is the Golden Rule. Biblical law is thus the instantiation the necessary framework needed to bring that objective truth into reality among the barbaric morass that constituted early man. Given the reality of our modern culture growing from cultures that embraced Biblical law it is not intellectually honest to casually dismiss the text as non functional or failed. It is entirely possible that Biblical law was the best possible set of rules that simultaneously moved a barbaric humanity closer to moral truth and ensured that truth successfully propagated maintained itself and spread. Any particular rule can become inapplicable or outdated with changing circumstances. The rule requiring sacrificial offerings in a central temple that no longer exists is a good example of this. Outdated or inapplicable rules are an inevitability of time. They are not an invalidation but a call to action. We are duty bound both to understand how the initial law supported the underlying objective moral truth and then find some other way to achieve a similar or superior end given the changing circumstance. |
|
|
|
More like you like to over complicate things using pseudo science bullshit to try to make your point. ''Almost all of the sexually permissive civilizations of antiquity are extinct.'' Who cares? Civilizations, descendants, they are all meaningless to me, my purpose is not to reproduce and have children. My purpose is to live my life the best I can trying not to hurt anyone...
The fact is that morals change because they were bad in the first place...
I don't think I am over complicating things at all. Quite the opposite actually. If you don't care about the future we are unlikely to agree on much at all. Personally I believe we have a duty to pass on a world to the next generation that is better then the one we inherited. That requires us to think about civilizations, and descendants even if we don't have children. If you don't care about maintaining your civilization you are hurting someone. You are hurting the unborn who will inherit the mess. The fact that those individuals don't exist yet does not mitigate the harm. In regards to changing morals over time please see my next post. |
|
|
|
...
Rand basically said that values that support and enhance life are objective moral values. They are good values to follow, but the problem arises when the life changes. The values that were objective need to be updated to be objective again.
Imagine a new technology that would allow us to clone human brains, or run ancestor simulations, or make hybrids with AI, or give AI our human cognitive abilities
...
The search for morality is work in progress. Anything else is just an attempt to stop the process, and fix the objective morality in time. With God or without it.
You could address this by abstracting the idea of life. Or you could define it as self-aware consciousness. In either case the transition you are concerned about could then be viewed as a phase shift like a caterpillar transforming into a butterfly. The Randian objective moral standard would hold across the transitions. I am not a proponent of Randian objectivism. I just think it's a much better system much closer to truth than moral subjectivity. It is also interesting how that particular form of atheist objectivism dimly echos the Ten Commandments as noted in my prior post. An objective morality can instantiate itself across time via new laws and behavior necessary to achieve the ultimate moral objective in a changing environment. The laws and behaviors change not the objective standard. The search for morality is indeed a work in progress. Subjective morality is the abandonment of that search with the proclamation that it's all arbitrary. I am amazed by how otherwise sane people cling to ancient texts for moral guidance. These texts clearly demonstrate that people who wrote these books knew very little about the world they were living in. Yet some of us in the 21st century ignore these obvious details.
You should not be amazed. Atheism guts meaning and purpose without offering an alternative. Thus it is often rejected. You may have latched onto subjective morality and maintained happiness by embracing the inconsistency of a personal objective truth, but that does not work for most. The following animated video describes why. Is There Meaning to Life?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGnXgH_CzE |
|
|
|
What are your reasons to believe that the objective morality exists? Assuming God does not exist.
I gave you my reasons why I think morality is relative to the present.
That's quite the question. Clearly objective morality is tangled up with and difficult to separate from God. The following animated video does a really good job of highlighting why. Can You Be Good Without Godhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?ebc=ANyPxKp_3uivzV7wkt638SPuusKsE7nzmqs7HiJVZZSIzNOX68TWTORdGbelmM6xXstEt6nLbEtk_pYoC0Kc6pKwqm6KRl9OLg&time_continue=301&v=OxiAikEk2vUIt is possible to argue for objective morality without God, but it requires you to ground morality in some other objective reference point. Ann Rand a famous atheist did this in her philosophical argument for objective morality. Morality Is Objective https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/3/8/morality-is-objective-and-we-can-prove-it/Ayn Rand The Objectivist Ethics "There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence – and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible. it changes form, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible." Biddle adds in his commentary: "The reason why living things need values is: in order to live. The answer to the question “for what?”is: for life." Life is the ultimate end served by our pursuit of values, and thus reigns as our objective standard of value. Something has value to us only to the extent that it furthers or enhances our life But what do we mean by “objective”? Isn’t the idea that life is the standard of value just Rand’s opinion? Can’t you choose another standard based on your subjective tastes? Craig Biddle answers: "No, free will do not make the issue subjective. It does mean that a person can choose not to live; but it does not mean that he can choose a standard of value other than life. … Without life there would be no one to whom anything could be beneficial or harmful. And why do such alternatives matter one way or the other? Because of the requirements of life. They are values or non-values only in relation to the alternative of life or death – and only for the purpose of promoting one’s life. The fact that we have free will does not change any of this; it simply grants us a choice in the matter: to live or not to live – to be or not to be. Having discovered this objective standard of value, we have our reference point for further unveiling an objective morality. From the fact of our own existence as living beings with a particular nature, we can rationally ascertain what we ought to do. Generally speaking, we ought to work to provide for our needs. We ought to act to obtain or keep that which furthers our survival and makes us happy. This happiness, the sort referenced by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, is not a hedonistic whim. It’s not chocolate for a diabetic. It’s not an affair for a married man. Rather, true happiness is gauged in the context of how life works and what we can reasonably expect to follow from our actions. The diabetic who eats lots of chocolate may gain short-term pleasure, but at the expense of his long-term well-being. The same can be said of the adulterer.  Odd how this objective morality, discovered by an unrepentant atheist, starts to dimly echo the Ten Commandments. Indeed, if God exists, and if He created the universe, it follows that his moral commandments would jive with the facts of his crafted reality – that He would prescribe action in our best interest. Personally I believe the best choice is to ground objective morality in God. However, for those unwilling to do so Ayn Rand's solution of grounding objective reality in life appears to be at least partially functional. Certainly better than nihilism or moral skepticism. |
|
|
|
...
Moral objectivity does not exist. You are wasting your time looking for it.
By applying ancient moral rules you are short circuting all the progress we have made as humanity.
Unsurprisingly we disagree once more at the foundation of things. I am confident you are wrong. A majority of philosophers the people who spend more time then anyone analyzing this question also think you are wrong. Moral Realismhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realismMoral realism (also ethical realism or moral Platonism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately. This makes moral realism a non-nihilist form of ethical cognitivism with an ontological orientation, standing in opposition to all forms of moral anti-realism and moral skepticism, including ethical subjectivism (which denies that moral propositions refer to objective facts), error theory (which denies that any moral propositions are true); and non-cognitivism (which denies that moral sentences express propositions at all). Within moral realism, the two main subdivisions are ethical naturalism and ethical non-naturalism.
Many philosophers claim that moral realism may be dated back at least to Plato as a philosophical doctrine,[1] and that it is a fully defensible form of moral doctrine.[2] A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[3] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).[4]
|
|
|
|
The problem, you knucklehead is that you are arguing that in ancient times god was there to help people, if we know those things were immoral now, god would have known then too and he would have done something about it not fucking help them with stupid laws that supported their immoral actions.
I think the real problem is that you are unwilling to look past the superficial. The overall moral message of the Bible in regards to human sexuality seems to be a pretty simple one. In the Bible any sexual activity outside of traditional marriage is immoral and prohibited period end of story. Like the challenge of sleeping with married women -> Death Penalty Farmer who gets frisky with his sheep -> Death Penalty Man who prefers men to women -> Death Penalty Rapist -> Death Penalty Even unmarried consensual sex leads to either the death penalty or a forced marriage depending on the specific circumstances. If you were serious about examining the morality of this you have to ask yourself not the specific question but the broad one. Is this strict prohibition of all sexual relations outside of marriage moral. Setting aside the traditional religious answer yes because God declared it this is not an easy question to answer. What if the functional alternative to such a restriction is cultural destruction and cessation. That appears to be the position of Rabbi Nachum Amsel above. Maybe it's simply not competitive. The historical record supports this. Almost all of the sexually permissive civilizations of antiquity are extinct. It was the puritanical ones that survived. We are currently running a real time experiment to find out if this holds true today. In Europe the loosening of the restraints on sexuality is quite advanced. https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/out-wedlock-births-rise-worldwideIn Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway and Sweden the majority of births now occur outside marriage, with government assistance typically provided to single mothers. Will European civilization continue or will it fall like so many decadent civilization throughout history have fallen when confronted with a culture that lacks this trait? |
|
|
|
As for gravity, it is a consequence of curvature of spacetime caused by large mass objects.
Slightly off topic but my favorite theory of gravity is that it itself isn't a real, fundamental force, but an illusory, emergent one. The idea is that gravity emerges from a more fundamental phenomenon in the Universe entropy. This is currently a topic of some theoretical research. It could be totally wrong of course but it's fascinating. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/10/04/are-space-time-and-gravity-all-just-illusions/#437cfb6d41cfThat said my experience with discussions with notbatman in the past have been notable for his casual dismissal of all contradictory evidence as conspiracy making productive conversation unviable. |
|
|
|
Because we live in a world with nuclear weapons, and we can't afford to have a global society where some people live their lives thinking that this life is irrelevant because the real prize is the afterlife.
All it takes is one suicidal religious zealot with a nuclear bomb, and a lot of innocent people are going to die. As a species, we needed to stop coddling religious belief when the atom bomb was invented. The stakes are too high now, and we can't afford the sort of nonsense that gets passed off as "religious wisdom" anymore.
I agree that people should never think this life is irrelevant. However, I would argue you are misdiagnosing the fundamental problem. The true challenge is that the human power to do evil is growing much faster then our wisdom to not be evil. Islamic countries may be developing nuclear weapons now but with relentless technological development there will soon come a time when everyone even single individuals will be able to unleash that kind of devastation. Ridding the world of religion would not solve the actual problem it would worsen it. When any single disgruntled individual has the ability to destroy a city block or unleash a biological plague that can kill thousands what is the solution? I believe religion has a critical role to play in answering to that question as I argued in this earlier post. An Argument for God |
|
|
|
Slavery is not moral because it causes harm to individuals. So the Bible moral code cannot be objective. If the morality is objective, how would you know that it was written somewhere? And why on Earth would you think that the ancient Jewish leaders figured out what the objective morality suppose to be. ... I don't think morality is objective because the environment, knowledge, customs change over time. Everything in the universe is constantly changing. Cells in your body are replaced every 7 years, so technically you are a different person every 7 years. Do you think having sex with a 9 year old is moral? It was few centuries ago, in some cultures. Moral objectivity can lead to ISIS style genocides. PS. Morality has to change as everything in the universe changes. Nothing stays the same. Life becomes more complex. Emergence is real. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16W7c0mb-rEYou are not being logically consistent in your arguments. If you truly think morality is subjective then it shouldn't bother you that sex with 9 year olds occurred in ancient cultures. That's was moral by their standards so it should be totally ok with you. Different day different morals. Similarly you should have nothing to say about the holocaust or the mass starvation and purges of China's cultural revolution. The majority of Germans and Chinese supported the Nazi and Communist regimes respectively and those regimes considered their actions not only moral but necessary for "victory". If morality is subjective all you can say about these things is that you don't like them or don't agree with them. You can say that according to your own subjective standard that's not appropriate behavior but you cannot say your code is better then theirs. Both codes are meaningless social constructs totally arbitrary. The reality is that you are actually applying an objective moral standard to your arguments. You are taking the position that your rule "Do not unnecessarily harm other people or animals." Is objectively true and thus it can be used to judge the conduct of others and our predecessors. I agree with you. I think your rule is objectively true. I just don't think it is sufficient or complete. Cells in the body do change but the underlying truth of cells the code that guides them in that reproduction usually does not. When it does change it normally manifests as cancer and kills us. You have figured out something you feel is objectively true. Your casual dismissal of other possible objective truths from your predecessors many of whom spent their entire lives pondering that very issue is unwise. ISIS style genocides occur despite moral objectivity. It occurs because of a subjective warping and misunderstanding of objective reality. I agree that such evils represent a reason to be cautious in our interpretation of reality. However, our limitations are not a reason to embrace subjectivity. Moral subjectivity facilitates far greater horrors as history has demonstrated. Everything in the universe does change but it changes in an orderly fashion via a chain of cascading causal orderly interactions that ultimately trace back to a first cause. Emergence is indeed real. It's existence shaped and guided by that same overarching order. The fact that we have free choice in such a universe even if it is an illusion so perfect we cannot see through it is nothing short of miraculous. |
|
|
|
Hmm, so you think that the OT laws are moral (i.e. God is moral) but you personally would not kill gay people (i.e. let the society at large decide)? Is that your position?
Yes The farther you diverge from the traditional monogamous family unit the more damage you do to society. A major reason why incest, adultery, sexual promiscuity outside marriage, and homosexuality are all bad even when they are consensual is that they disrupt the formation of the traditional family unit. Traditional monogamy in marriage is the chaining of the very destructive biological reproductive drive into a pathway that is both reproductively functional and non-disruptive to society. Everything that disrupts that process i.e. the entire "sexual revolution" undermines the foundation of society and in extreme case is ultimately fatal to the culture. Societies live and die by what they permit and what they prohibit. These decisions of law must be made collectively. Trying to imposing a personal moral value via violence against another when that behavior is condoned and legal is not a solution and never will be. In my own case I have also yet to decided if the Torah and the Bible were written by God through inspired men or written by men inspired by the ideal of God. The latter case opens the possibility of error which I have not discounted. I am still studying the texts.
In my opinion, the OT laws were moral at the time they were written.
Today, the OT laws are demonstrably immoral, ...
Morality changes over time,
I disagree with this moral relativism. According to this logic morality is whatever the majority says is moral. I believe morality has an objective reality outside of human opinion.
PS. The fact that morality or immorality changes over time is proof that the scriptures were not divinely inspired but are product of a human mind, frozen in time they were written.
If morality is objective then it cannot change over time. Laws based on universal moral principles can lose applicability over time and superior laws may become possible that achieve the original moral goal in a more effective or kinder manner. The original moral principle, however, cannot change if morality is an objective reality. |
|
|
|
The question is not to whom the OT laws where given.
The question is whether the OT laws are immoral.
There are two options you have with regards to the authors of OT:
1. The OT laws are moral, then the authors (God) were moral and killing of gays is a moral action.
2. The OT laws are immoral, then the authors (God) were immoral and killing of gays is an immoral action.
So you, CoinCube, think that the authors of OT were immoral because you stated that you would not kill gays.
I want to hear what BADecker thinks. I want him to see that the laws given by God are immoral, hence God of the Bible is immoral.
Either God is immoral or God did not inspire the Bible.
Or God is moral and killing of gays is a moral action.
Which one is it?
Your options are oversimplified and obscure the real dichotomy here. The real dichotomy is as follows. 1. The OT laws are moral, then the authors (God) were moral in legislating homosexual acts to be a capital offence and subsequently for societies to bring capital charges against the gays who despite knowing it was a capital offence chose to engage in them. 2. The OT laws are immoral, then the authors (God) was wrong. Homosexuality is not harmful to society. It should not be a crime and it is definitely immoral to outlaw homosexuality and even more immoral to declare it a capital crime. Neither of these possibilities require a religious person to go out and kill gay people. If you believe option #1 is reality then you should logically advocate against the entire Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer movement politically and if those efforts fail prepare yourself for your civilization to gradually fail as that is what God pretty much said would happen in the Bible at least according to Rabbi Nachum Amsel above. If you believe option #2 is reality then things are fine. The Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer movement is part of a great liberation movement. Other outdated Biblical prohibitions like incest should also be done away with. It is no ones business what consenting adults do behind closed doors. Many other archaic prohibitions like pedophilia also need to be closely examined. Who are we as a society to say that some mature young people can't consent to something. That is archaic traditionalism from puritanical times. Ultimately people need to decide for themselves what is true. |
|
|
|
If OT laws are not immoral, the Leviticus 20:13 is in the OT, so by your logic it is not immoral.
So killing gays is ok then? Yes or no?
BADecker stated that the laws in Leviticus were given and apply to ancient Israel. Let's see what the Orthodox Jews say about this topic. HOMOSEXUALITY IN ORTHODOX JUDAISM http://lookstein.org/resources/homosexuality_amsel.pdf
THE CONTEXT AND REASONS FOR THE TORAH VIEW OF HOMOSEXUALITY
The Torah calls homosexuality a Toaiva-abomination. What does it mean? Usually, the Rabbis do not explain the meaning of Torah words. And the meaning of abomination seems reasonably clear -- it is abhorrent to God. But in this case, the Talmud does offer a specific explanation. Based on a play on the Hebrew words, the Talmud says that in the act of homosexuality, the person is "straying" What does this mean?
The commentaries on the Talmud say that by abandoning heterosexual sexual relations, the person is straying from one of his prime goals in life -- to procreate and populate the earth (Genesis 1:28). We will amplify this theme below, but this explanation does not seem to be the "abhorrence" that the word "TOAIVA" implies in the simple meaning. Thus, the classic explanation of why homosexuality is prohibited in the Torah is because of "straying" i.e. failure to populate the earth. The Chinuch explains that any "wasting of seed" on homosexual relations is preventing procreation and inhabiting the earth, the prime directive of man. This "prime directive" is echoed by Isaiah in describing the purpose of Creation -- "to be inhabited."
This explanation does not point to the "unholiness" of the homosexual relationship, but, rather, the violation of man's purpose on earth. We may be able to understand the Torah view of homosexuality better if we compare it to other sins in the Torah that are also called Toaiva- abomination. There are numerous other references to deeds that are described as Toaiva- abomination. By examining each one, we may be able to ascertain what they all have in common.
Desiring and taking idols of the nations that the Jews conquer is considered a Toaiva- abomination. Eating non-kosher foods is also called a Toaiva-abomination. There is a general statement that ALL the customs of the Canaanite nations are considered to be Toaiva-abomination. Then there is a general warning not to learn or copy the Toaiva-abominations of all the Cannanite nations. This is followed by some examples (noted above), including child sacrifice to their gods, using a seer or "magician" to contact the dead or predict the future. Then God says that it is BECAUSE these nations did all these acts of Toaiva- abomination that God is letting the Jewish people inherit the land.
What do all these acts have in common? They are pagan customs of the societies whose values are antithetical to Judaism. God emphatically warns the Jewish people not to learn these customs or follow these values. Based on this, homosexuality, also called Toaiva-abomination, can be understood to be a societal value and sin that is alien to Judaism and Jewish values, and should not be "learned" from the societies where the Jews have lived or have conquered.
The other Torah, Talmudic and Midrashic references to homosexuality also elucidate the overall Torah view towards homosexuality. Although not expressed explicitly in the Torah, the Rabbis understood that, according to Rav, Potiphar bought the Hebrew Joseph specifically for homosexual purposes. This is significant, as it implies that homosexuality was prevalent in Egypt at that time. Thus, when the Torah later on commands not to imitate the ways of the Egyptians (and Canaanites), this could also include the common practice of homosexuality that was found in these societies.
...
In the society of Sodom, the Torah clearly says that the townspeople demanded that the strangers be given to them for homosexual purposes (the verb "knowing" in the Torah is frequently associated with the sexual act - - see Genesis 4:1). This was apparently common practice in that society, and hence the origin of the term sodomy. This is one of the main reasons that the city was destroyed very soon thereafter.
All of these Torah examples have one thing in common: homosexual activity is common in these foreign societies and is abhorred by God, and all of these societies were eventually destroyed. Thus, once again, shows that Jews may not engage in such activity, and imitate the mores of these foreign societies.
The overarching argument appears to be one of willful self destruction. That if a society chooses to embrace Toaiva-abomination be it child sacrifice, beastiality, occultism, or yes homosexuality that society will sooner or later be "distroyed by God". It would cease to exist presumably by not fully understood cause and effect mechanisms that undermine something necessary for society to survive. Now if you believe the Bible is arbitrary man made rules you reject that argument. The multiculturalist for example argue that all cultures and practices are equally valuable. One does wonder how they would deal with child sacrifice if all the societies practicing it had not already been destroyed. Regardless we live in a secular society where homosexuality is accepted and celebrated with frequent parades. Will that acceptance cause growing problems and gnaw away at the foundations of our society over time? The answer to that probably depends on whether you think the Bible is the word of God or arbitrary rules. |
|
|
|
Yes, it constitutes a child abuse. But I am not a judge to determine the legal status of that neglect.
You are playing word games. The legal status is determined by the word which is a crime by definition. Try it with others crime and see how silly it sounds. Yes, it constitutes rape. But I am not a judge to determine the legal status of that rape. Yes, it constitutes theft. But I am not a judge to determine the legal status of that theft. Yes, it constitutes murder. But I am not a judge to determine the legal status of that murder. We have lots of other words to describe things we don't like that are not crimes. Bad parenting for example or shameful action. |
|
|
|
1. I said that if you teach your Bronze Age Biblical stories and moral code you are harming your children. You can do whatever you want, they are your children.
That's not what you said. You said teaching religion to ones children is child abuse which is a crime and has a legal definition and legal consequences. You are now arguing that teaching religion to your children is a bad idea. That in your opinion it is not in the children's best interest. That is very different then your earlier claims of criminality and child abuse. You cannot do whatever you want to your children. That is an obviously incorrect statement. We have certain crimes that parents are legally not allowed to inflict on their children. Those crimes are called child abuse. Just so we are clear and understand each other's position. You do not feel that teaching religion to ones children is child abuse? Child abuse is a crime leads to the removal of children from the parents home and has a legal definition. Child Abuse https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Child+AbusePhysical, sexual, or emotional mistreatment or neglect of a child. Child Abuse has been defined as an act, or failure to act, on the part of a parent or caretaker that results in the death, serious physical or emotional harm, Sexual Abuse, or exploitation of a child, or which places the child in an imminent risk of serious harm (42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g). |
|
|
|
Are you sure? Are you saying Jews today don't follow Torah? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_JudaismPS. You guys should just admit that you would not kill gays just because they are gays, i.e. you would not follow what the Bible/Torah recommends and we can move on. Even the most conservative Jews the ultra-orthodox acknowledge that Torah must be understood as rules given to them by God in ancient times. Rules which must be reconciled to a modern reality. No Jews perform animal sacrifices in a temple for example. I have already started that I don't think we should kill gay people. I said it several times actually. I have never met anyone who thinks we should execute gay people. I think we should study what causes a disruption of the reproductively functional sex drive and once we understand it learn how to cure it. That is easily achievable with our current level of technological development. |
|
|
|
You said the bible is a moral code divinely inspired, the bible clearly states you should kill homosexuals, don't use excuses now, don't be a pussy, come on do it, god will save you.
What do you hope to accomplish by asking BADecker the same question over and over again? I have probably read only a small fraction of BADeckers post and I have seen him answer this question of yours several times already. Here is one example. Incidentally, the stuff in the Old Testament was for the nation of Ancient Israel. Present-day Israel isn't the same nation as Ancient Israel. So God's old commands to execute homosexuals aren't even for the Jews of today.  He has clearly stated that the punishments outlined in the opening books of the Bible were instructions for ancient Israel. Every Christian I have ever met shares this belief it's not rare and there are solid reasons for taking this position some of which I highlighted immediately upthread. |
|
|
|
If you hear God you are insane.
Please do everyone a favor and check yourself into a mental institution the moment you start hearing that God is talking to you.
At that point you will be in danger to your loved ones and society at large.
Do not harm people and other animals, gays included.
The Philosophy of af_newbie Do not harm people and other animals. Except: 1) Children of religious people. They are sure to be dangerously influenced by their parents beliefs and should be forcibly taken from their homes and placed in orphanages. Maybe if the parents publicly renounce their faith and swear never to speak of it we can simply put observation devices in all the rooms of their homes instead. don't preach this BS to children.
That would constitute a child abuse.
2) Anyone not smart, wealthy or powerful enough to avoid involuntarily sterilization or behavioral modification. The world is overpopulated and the way to slow that down is to let natural selection weed out the powerless with a little help of course. Chemical's that reduce sex drive, toxins that trigger or exacerbate homosexuality, pollution that leads to sterilization all things to be quietly flooded into the environment. Survival of the fittest in action. Nature is cruel, but it works
...
Human population doubles every '70/growth rate' years. If nature can find a way to slow it down, the better our chances of survival
3) When not harming people or animals is impractical. Each individual gets to decide what "practical" means. We need to eat and survive after all and it's a dog eat dog world out there. we have evolved enough to make that determination (when to follow or breach our moral standards) ourselves
But don't harm people and other animals that's important (except when it's not) and utterly self evident. Feel free to correct me if I have mischaracterized any of your positions. |
|
|
|
Modern pollution is a problem. I agree. It changes our bodies, our digestive, nervous and hormonal systems.
Polluting businesses should be held accountable for their actions. IMHO, all processed food industry should be on trial.
What you are suggesting is that we somehow can control what nature puts out and how nature controls living organisms. I don't think we have the technology to 'save the gay people'. I don't feel they need to be 'saved' because I don't think they are 'disabled' or 'damned'. Many straight people decide not to have children at all, are you going to go after them and correct their genes (assuming the issue is genetic in nature)? It is a slippery slope. I would stay away and let the nature deal with it. When two gay people are having sex they are not harming anyone. It is their choice, let them be happy. And you be happy.
Nature is cruel, but it works. Sometimes interfering with it causes more long-term damage than it is worthwhile.
PS. Human population doubles every '70/growth rate' years. If nature can find a way to slow it down, the better our chances of survival as humanity. We'll have to leave Earth sooner rather than later because of our exponential population growth. Currently we are adding 1 billion people every 12 years. That is the root cause of most of our pollution problems. But nobody wants to talk about it. Politicians, businessmen want 'growth'.
You do realize that this "acceptance/worship of nature" can take you to some very dark places. Nature is amoral. There is great evil in nature. Here are some comments on the topic by Dennis Prager. He is the author of The Rational Bible. "Nature is amoral. Nature knows nothing of good and evil. In nature there is one rule—survival of the fittest. There is no right, only might. If a creature is weak, kill it. Only human beings could have moral rules such as, "If it is weak, protect it." Only human beings can feel themselves ethically obligated to strangers.
...
Nature allows you to act naturally, i.e., do only what you want you to do, without moral restraints; God does not. Nature lets you act naturally - and it is as natural to kill, rape, and enslave as it is to love.
...
One of the vital elements in the ethical monotheist revolution was its repudiation of nature as god. The evolution of civilization and morality have depended in large part on desanctifying nature.
...
Civilizations that equated gods with nature—a characteristic of all primitive societies—or that worshipped nature did not evolve.
...
Words cannot convey the magnitude of the change wrought by the Bible's introduction into the world of a God who rules the universe morally."
Essentially you are making the case that we don't know for sure yet that toxins are causing human homosexuality and even if they are the earth is overpopulated so it is for the best if a large number of humans end up being involuntary modified so they don't want to reproduce. More room for you and your offspring. Let nature sort it out via survival of the fittest. Yours is a very natural argument and it is not logically incorrect. It is however very flawed in other ways deeper fundamental ways. I agree with you that we will have to leave Earth sooner rather than later. That is inevitable. Miscreanity shared some thoughts on this topic. I found them quite insightful. Faith and FutureWhat is actually the worst possible outcome is to have one strategy, religion, or culture adopted by everyone.
This is the point I disagree with. I think we both agree that the optimal way to increase degrees of freedom for individuals is to allow and enable instead of controlling. A universal strategy is an essential foundation that enables freedom. Without that, we have the situation that is developing now with varying viewpoints where some sets are progressing toward destruction and others are being dragged into declining entropy. Competition can take place when there is room for growth but on a globally saturated scale, nobody wins. Reproductive strategy is likely to become essentially irrelevant for humanity, possibly within our lifetimes. It seems inevitable that our existing biological bodies will give way to different forms that will carry us off-planet. At that point, allowing and enabling all individuals to thrive in a constructive environment becomes paramount. What then is the protocol that keeps that freedom from becoming destructive? Of course, my thinking is that the protocol is outlined in the Christian bible. The following two (relatively) short videos may be of interest regarding previous discussion: The moral argument for GodWhy Does God Allow Evil?Regardless, thank you I understand your position. I will now step away from this conversation as I have other obligations that will occupy my time for the next two weeks. I will give you the last word. |
|
|
|
Nature is what it is. I'm not sure what 'God' is so I cannot comment whether 'God' is nature or nature is 'God'.
...
Gay men are physically capable of having sex with women, so your talk about disability does not make sense. They can physically have sex with straight women or have children through artificial insemination. Their sexual preference is hardly a disability. They can reproduce if they want to. There are many examples of gay men that have been married to straight women and had children.
As for 'fixing' gay genes, well, who says we should be fixing anything.
We are doing enough 'fixing' of nature as it is.
...
PS. Not having to worry about God and scriptures, will free up your mind. Try it. Your mind will become very lucid in no time.
I am sure you would agree that there are a lot of "natural" things that are not good things. It is natural to steal if you can get away with it. It is natural to want to have sexual relations with your neighbors wife if you are heterosexual and she is young and attractive. It is natural to want to murder your arch enemy if you can safely do so and avoid punishment. Nature is clearly not always good. That's why you have your one moral rule. Some form of overarching moral structure is NECESSARY or we truly degenerate into something worse than an animal. Let's run with your theory and say homosexuality is a culling mechanism like cellular apoptosis that occurs at some low frequency randomly and is triggered by severe environmental stress or toxic exposure. I cited several studies above showing that homosexuality is induced in animals by multiple different toxins so your theory is plausible. If we are condemning large number of children to genetic death in the womb or in early childhood because we are inadvertently poisoning them with toxins or by placing them in situations of severe environmental stress are we not harming them? Isn't that a huge violation of your moral standard of do not harm others and in need of urgent and critical rectification? Gay men are physically capable of having sex with women. They can reproduce if they want to. The problem of course is that they don't want to and that lack of desire is in part not a choice. If that lack of desire is in any way the result of human action however unintentional then they are victims of a horrible crime. One we have a moral obligation to understand and reverse if the victims wish or at least stop committing in the future. If you are serious about your moral standard and truly believe your own theory about homosexuality I am curious as to how you can see it any other way. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
