Ethics and Morality - Page 6 - Talk About Marriage
Politics and Religion This is the place to discuss politics, morality, religion, and anything controversial.

User Tag List

 103Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #76 of 101 (permalink) Old 01-27-2017, 11:59 PM
Member
 
Vinnydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Southern USA, but longtime NYC boy prior to our move.
Posts: 464
Re: Ethics and Morality

The problem in answering questions from a moral and ethical standpoint is that you are assuming that everyone shares your morals and ethics or should. Those two things are very subjective and sometimes it can come off as a superior to thou kind of thing. You really cannot apply your morality and ethics to others. The morality of my wife and I allows for her bisexuality and sex with others occasionally. Yet I respect the monogamy/heterosexual morality of others. For me the only problem occurs when two people share the same morality and ethics, and then breaks it. Other than that I would not judge others from my moral and ethical standpoint. It is all very subjective as far as individual preferences, culture, religion and society goes. I always remember that my morality is not better than others, and so I avoid imposing my morality on others' behavior. What you were doing is like injecting your religious beliefs on the problem of others. Especially since much of our morality stems from religious teachings. You wanted our feelings on this, so here they are.


Many prefer to drown in a pool of their own morality rather than seek the safety of a different morality.
Vinnydee is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #77 of 101 (permalink) Old 01-28-2017, 12:26 AM
Member
 
DustyDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Edging slowly closer to the frozen tundra
Posts: 343
Re: Ethics and Morality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivlor View Post
Ive engaged with a lot of commenters here, and I regularly engage from a position of morality and ethics. Some have vehemently opposed this position, others just argued that my morality / ethos is incorrect.

So Im curious my fellow TAM members, do you believe in morality? In ethics? If not, why not? If so, why?

For the sake of continuity, Id like to use the following definitions of morality and ethics so we don't get too confused:
Morality is understanding the distinction between right and wrong and living according to that understanding, and ethics is the philosophy of how that morality guides individual and group behavior. The two are closely related, with morality being the foundation of ethics.

In other words, Morality is defining what is right and wrong. Ethics is the philosophy by which we ask questions RE: Morality and its place in society.
Here's how I look at it - and it's from a much higher plane than yours.

World belief systems can be split in many ways. One of them is whether the belief system has a dualism basis - sometimes called "pairs of opposites". Man versus Woman. Good versus Evil. Law-abiding versus criminal. Citizens versus law-enforcement.

This dualism permeates Western culture.

The alternative view is called alternatively "in accord" or "accordance". Everything - humans, animals, plants, processes in nature - are all in accord with each other, giving and taking for the benefit of all. In this belief system there is no right/wrong, there is only whether you are moving along paths that are in accord with the culture. If you move in a path not in accord with the culture, you will feel discomfort long before law enforcement notices. This accord system is inherent in all the Eastern religions -Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucism, and so on, and was present strongly in Judaism, and until the 2nd century AD, still strong in Christianity and can be read in the Gospel of Thomas.

In societies which still live according to the early "accord" style of decision-making, they have far fewer laws, and far fewer crimes. A thing cannot be a crime if no law has been written to make it so.

Thus, the black and white belief in "right versus wrong" is replaced by a colorful rainbow palette of how and how well a person integrates with their culture...and deviations tend to be self-correcting. Ethics? Self-correcting. Morality? If people aren't told what it is to be "moral", then they also do not know what it is to be "immoral" (ref: Jesuit Priest Anthony de Mello). History shows us that cultures who are ignorant of right and wrong go downhill when we present them with the concept.

So, I think the whole black and white notion of life is troubled form the start.

But most of us on this forum grew up in it so it's kind of a band-aid we have to deal with. To our detriment, I fear.

There are three kinds of business. Your business, my business and God's business. Whose business are you in? -Byron Katie
DustyDog is offline  
post #78 of 101 (permalink) Old 01-28-2017, 08:42 AM Thread Starter
Member
 
Kivlor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rural Midwest
Posts: 2,735
Re: Ethics and Morality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnydee View Post
The problem in answering questions from a moral and ethical standpoint is that you are assuming that everyone shares your morals and ethics or should. Those two things are very subjective and sometimes it can come off as a superior to thou kind of thing. You really cannot apply your morality and ethics to others. The morality of my wife and I allows for her bisexuality and sex with others occasionally. Yet I respect the monogamy/heterosexual morality of others. For me the only problem occurs when two people share the same morality and ethics, and then breaks it. Other than that I would not judge others from my moral and ethical standpoint. It is all very subjective as far as individual preferences, culture, religion and society goes. I always remember that my morality is not better than others, and so I avoid imposing my morality on others' behavior. What you were doing is like injecting your religious beliefs on the problem of others. Especially since much of our morality stems from religious teachings. You wanted our feelings on this, so here they are.
Okay. So no morality is better than another. None can be applied to another person than yourself...

My response to this is found in page 3 of this thread, post 37.

To sum it up, if there is no morally distinguishing between differing ethos... then Martin Luther King Jr. is morally indistinguishable from Charles Manson. Then a family having a picnic in not morally distinguishable from tossing Jews into the ovens at Auschwitz.

Judge Not, right? They're all the same? No difference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DustyDog View Post
Here's how I look at it - and it's from a much higher plane than yours.

World belief systems can be split in many ways. One of them is whether the belief system has a dualism basis - sometimes called "pairs of opposites". Man versus Woman. Good versus Evil. Law-abiding versus criminal. Citizens versus law-enforcement.

This dualism permeates Western culture.

The alternative view is called alternatively "in accord" or "accordance". Everything - humans, animals, plants, processes in nature - are all in accord with each other, giving and taking for the benefit of all. In this belief system there is no right/wrong, there is only whether you are moving along paths that are in accord with the culture. If you move in a path not in accord with the culture, you will feel discomfort long before law enforcement notices. This accord system is inherent in all the Eastern religions -Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucism, and so on, and was present strongly in Judaism, and until the 2nd century AD, still strong in Christianity and can be read in the Gospel of Thomas.

In societies which still live according to the early "accord" style of decision-making, they have far fewer laws, and far fewer crimes. A thing cannot be a crime if no law has been written to make it so.

Thus, the black and white belief in "right versus wrong" is replaced by a colorful rainbow palette of how and how well a person integrates with their culture...and deviations tend to be self-correcting. Ethics? Self-correcting. Morality? If people aren't told what it is to be "moral", then they also do not know what it is to be "immoral" (ref: Jesuit Priest Anthony de Mello). History shows us that cultures who are ignorant of right and wrong go downhill when we present them with the concept.

So, I think the whole black and white notion of life is troubled form the start.

But most of us on this forum grew up in it so it's kind of a band-aid we have to deal with. To our detriment, I fear.
You have an odd concept of "higher". I am quite familiar with the concept of living in "accord" with "nature". I found it alluring for a while, but it lost its luster, the more I studied our nature, and nature in general. Our nature is violent. All nature is violent. Even the tree aggressively seeks dominance over all contenders, spreading it's branches wide, and stunting them with its shade. Creatures don't seek some equitable station in their ecosystem, they seek to succeed. To propagate. Humans, with an understanding of morality, are unique in that they can control this impulse, if they choose.

And to be clear, even most of the "accord" philosophies acknowledge morality. They have lists of what is good and bad in a moral view. Buddhism is an example, having a concept of morality, and right and wrong thinking, actions, understanding...

You are correct, that people must be taught morality, just like they must be taught language. There is nothing detrimental to knowing there is a right and wrong. In fact, the lacking of one is what is detrimental.

Do you hear the people sing / Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people / Who are climbing to the light.
For the wretched of the earth / There is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end / And the sun will rise...
Kivlor is online now  
 
post #79 of 101 (permalink) Old 01-28-2017, 08:54 AM
Member
 
2ntnuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: PA
Posts: 13,997
Re: Ethics and Morality

Judging must be done for self-preservation, which is embedded in our primal brain.

Punishments and consequences are what most fear and are what most mean when they say, "It's wrong to judge". That would be sentencing, not judging.

"I'm significant!! Screamed the dust speck." - Bill Watterson

"And this, too, shall pass away."
2ntnuf is offline  
post #80 of 101 (permalink) Old 01-28-2017, 09:44 AM
Member
 
Spicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 613
Re: Ethics and Morality

First off I have to say I haven't had a chance to read this whole thread, but would give my answer.

I have tried to live by the morals and ethics my parents, faith and community instilled in me. I have failed a lot, even epically a few times.

The thing is, we are all raised different and so the morals and ethics can end up drastically different. We also have individuality and free will. So ultimately I can only speak from where I "come from" and try my best so hear where others are coming from.

Ciao,

Spicy
Spicy is online now  
post #81 of 101 (permalink) Old 01-28-2017, 12:02 PM
Member
 
katiecrna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,359
Re: Ethics and Morality

I believe in ethics and morality because I am Christian and I believe in doing the "right" thing. This world would be terrible if we didn't live by these principles imo. I also believe doing the right thing leads to a better life that may not be easy right now but worth it in the end.

Today, people think only of themselves and what they think is best for themselves. These people are not driven by morals but selfishness and the ends justify the means mentality.
katiecrna is offline  
post #82 of 101 (permalink) Old 01-28-2017, 12:25 PM
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 5,500
Re: Ethics and Morality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivlor View Post
I don't think I've read this one. I'll check it out. I'm very familiar with the NAP, and I used to subscribe to it adamantly. I still think it's a very useful "rule of thumb" that has exceptions/caveats.

Regarding pacifism, I would only say that it seems to me that it is always immoral to take the life of a human. Sometimes, we find ourselves in situations where it is justified, or where it is the least bad option, but it is still always bad. This wouldn't necessarily be extended to all force--there are times when initiation of force is moral. (also keep in mind "immoral" doesn't necessarily mean something should be unlawful)

Now, on the religion concept, RE: NAP would it not make sense to judge a religion by its ideas. If its holy texts promote violence, then it is a very bad (immoral) ideology according to the NAP, right?

Without me reading the book you've recommended, could you make a defense of the NAP in general, as to how you come to it being objectively immoral to initiate force against someone?
Happy to. Here's the proof, in two parts.

Part I: The validity of the Golden Rule
1. The Golden Rule says "If something is hateful to you, do not do it to another".
2 Everyone believes in the Golden Rule as applied to others' actions toward them, so they are being logically inconsistent if they don't follow it themselves.
3. Thus we can assume the universal validity of the Golden Rule.

Part II: Proof of the NAP, given the validity of the Golden Rule
1. NAP requires only that you don't force anyone to do anything (or to refrain from doing anything).
2. It is logically impossible to want to be forced to do anything (or to refrain from doing anything), as anything you are willing to do (or refrain from doing) doesn't require force to get you to do it (or refrain from doing it).
3. Thus, forcing someone else to do something (or to refrain from doing something) violates the Golden Rule, because you are doing to someone else what you wouldn't want to have done to you.

Q. E. D.

Always remember the LD motto: "Sex isn't important!!!"
tech-novelist is offline  
post #83 of 101 (permalink) Old 01-28-2017, 03:13 PM
Member
 
2ntnuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: PA
Posts: 13,997
Re: Ethics and Morality

I think the golden rule is a description of personal knowledge gained through spiritual experience.

"I'm significant!! Screamed the dust speck." - Bill Watterson

"And this, too, shall pass away."
2ntnuf is offline  
post #84 of 101 (permalink) Old 01-28-2017, 05:41 PM
Member
 
DustyDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Edging slowly closer to the frozen tundra
Posts: 343
Re: Ethics and Morality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivlor View Post
I am quite familiar with the concept of living in "accord" with "nature". I found it alluring for a while, but it lost its luster, the more I studied our nature, and nature in general. Our nature is violent. All nature is violent. Even the tree aggressively seeks dominance over all contenders, spreading it's branches wide, and stunting them with its shade. Creatures don't seek some equitable station in their ecosystem, they seek to succeed. To propagate. Humans, with an understanding of morality, are unique in that they can control this impulse, if they choose.

And to be clear, even most of the "accord" philosophies acknowledge morality. They have lists of what is good and bad in a moral view. Buddhism is an example, having a concept of morality, and right and wrong thinking, actions, understanding...

You are correct, that people must be taught morality, just like they must be taught language. There is nothing detrimental to knowing there is a right and wrong. In fact, the lacking of one is what is detrimental.
Based on my studies, you have an inaccurate understanding of "accord" as well as Buddhism.

I'm not sure I'd say we are violent by nature, nor that nature is violent. The word "violence" connotes strong aggressive action that is not warranted. Therefore, an animal killing another animal for food is not violent, it is simply carrying the innate drive all animals have, to perpetuate its own species.

Life is precious - it is the ineffable, the transcendent, which means bigger than we are capable of explaining in words. From the first stirrings of human writing, we can see the puzzle, the wondering about this grand paradox that in order to live, other things must die. We eat dead plants and dead animals, those are all the food sources that exist. How can this be OK? The only explanation they came up with is that "life" is not my life and your life, but rather, all life put together. Which means each of us as individuals is a micro-part of Life, intentionally with a big L. Primitive humans, accepting this as a belief, would be conservative in their killing of animals for food - just enough for them to eat, survive, procreate. As a side note, since life was seen as the big deal, women were worshipped - it was obvious that new life came from woman, and a man's role was merely to provide a safe place for her to create life (give birth). Note that in these days, the creation of life itself was seen as risky, given what is estimated to be a 10% rate of other other or baby dying during the birthing process (same as other mammals) and another 20% for infant child mortality.

Surely we must eat, so Life cannot be upset by us eating by killing animals and plants - so humankind made stories up about this. The bear came into out midst because Life decided that bear's purpose was to help feed this tribe of humans...just as, if a human strayed too far and fed another animal species, it was something Life intended..or at least accepted. One way to make this mentally tolerable was to create the notion of an afterlife. This spring's bear would come back next year as next year's bear, and so on. This notion of afterlife and re-incarnation can be seen to evolve as religious beliefs changed over the eons, and can be seen in the Hindu and Buddhist beliefs in reincarnation, and to a lesser extent, the Christian belief in purgatory.

Buddhism does not tell you what is right or wrong. There is no explicit claim that specific acts are right or wrong. Rather, the way you lived your life is evaluated and when you die, you are reincarnated elsewhere - and it's a place for which you are ready. If you have led a life of theft and the taking of lives, you will spend your next lifetime having things stolen from you and your life taken repeatedly. If you have lived a life of being generous to others, then you will go to a place where others are generous to you. You spend as much time in each afterlife as you spent in your corporeal life, then you return as a human again. Ultimately, if you lead a 'perfect' life, which means you get rid of every desire you have - no fleshly desire to reproduce, no desire to eat because you have, in fact, shucked off your desire to even live - then you will not be reincarnated, but will become one with - nirvana or whatever their concept of it is. That is Buddhism as has been practiced since circa 500AD....this I gathered from my reading, my attendance at temples in Japan, and conversations with friends of mine in and from Japan. I am told, by my friends from India, that the same concept of reincarnating into a place you are prepared for is somewhat altered, but also exists in Hinduism. Over in China, Buddhism tends to be restricted to mountaintop villages, and in the cities, a form of Confuciousism (not sure if that's the word, but based on the original dude who came up with the idea - Confucious) is practiced. Confu-whatever is said, by my colleagues from and in China, to be kind of like Buddhism but made more practical: one is not encouraged to shuck off all worldly desires, but instead, to consider the impact of one's worldly desires on other people, animals, plants and "the world energy" which is generally interpreted as being wind, rain, fertile soil and sunlight. And yet again, one is encouraged to do theses things, and not told right versus wrong or you'll be punished.

Each of those cultures, of course, does have law enforcement and that is seen as the place for them to create "right" and "wrong" for the purpose of maintaining a peaceful society - nobody I've spoken to makes any claim that there's a 'moral' or 'ethical' imperative - you are not considered a 'bad person' if you break the law - you just did a bad thing. The crime rates in all those areas are much lower than in the Westernized world.


The other point on which I'm fairly certain evidence does not support your claim is this:

"Even the tree aggressively seeks dominance over all contenders, spreading it's branches wide, and stunting them with its shade. Creatures don't seek some equitable station in their ecosystem, they seek to succeed."

I live in the country and have for a long time. The only naturally-occurring tree, still growing in its natural habitat, that chokes out everything as you say, to my knowledge, is the redwood. That tree is so acidic, nothing else can grow in the soil beneath it. In even the largest redwood groves in Northern California, there is plenty of sunlight at the base of the trees. And - the amazing thing about redwoods is that they are so tall that they cannot get water from their roots - capillary action can only carry water so high. Therefore, they can get proper water only from fog - which is why they grow natively in places where there is daily fog year-round. Young trees can and do get water from the soil, and that's exactly how young redwood saplings get their water...the big trees don't stop that, nor do they block the sunlight.

Up here in Oregon, we have some old growth forests and it's amazing how well the plants co-habitate. A tree growing in a place where ther'es a lot of underbrush won't grow so large...even as the underbrush pulls back to let in the new neighbor. We also have a non-native species, the Himalayan Blackberry. Having grown in high altitude arid climes with mountain goats, it had to develop an agreesive manner of keeping itself alive and that is that it procreates vigorously. In its native habitat there were no other plants, so it had no need to share. Bring it to watery Oregon sans mountain goats, and this plant grows 50 feet in a year and will, indeed, suck up all the water and kill an entire forest in a few years, by depriving the trees of water. But this has been allowed to happen only due to the interference of humankind.


Where I live is a mixture of farmland and timber. While we don't have a neighborhood association or covenants and all that stuff, we do believe we depend on each other. Everybody knows who can fix electric fences, who can sharpen saws, who can fix small electronics, who can help you figure out which critter is eating your veggie garden. We gather at one of two watering holes known as taverns, and there are 3-4 neighborhood festivals, celebrating planting or harvest or in one case, the Swiss culture, since it had a lot to do with populating this region. In a 10 X 10 mile area, we might have 200 total families, which is about what you find in the average suburb of two blocks. Lots of open land.

In this area, we have lots of free-range deer, lots of coyotes, an elk herd and one cougar. The cougar takes down an elk from time to time...she seems to be satisfied with one elk for most of a month. She might go after a coyote, if one has gotten old and weak and strayed from the pack. The Coyotes, meanwhile, consume small critters - rabbits, mice, that sort of thing - but they don't eat all of them, as the coyotes seem to have some idea of territory and want to stay right here. They do not leave the area seeking out even more food so as to procreate more...they seem to have some notion of statis and some kind of awarness that as long as they don't eat everything they can, then there will still be plenty more brand new critters to eat next year. Coyotes are, in fact, omnivores, so if there isn't enough fresh meat around, such as in winter, they get by eating field grasses - and I've never seen them consume an entire field. In fact, they seem to eat in patches, leaving just the right amount of grasses that next season, the fields fill in again.

The only animal I know of that will consume the entirety of anything is human. In fact, if we encounter something that stops us from growing without limit, we come up with a medical fix. We built houses so we don't have to worry about fending off predators, we've come up with ways to avoid infant mortality, we figure out ways for babies born with bad defects to make it to adulthood and create more babies with birth defects. All told, as a species, this weakens us considerably. If, in fact, human ran out of oil energy, the human who survive would be the aboriginal cultures, because they're living without it anyway. It's us Westerners who'd perish without thermostatically-controlled temperatures.

Now I'm not about to say we should let unhealty babies die...but I am a realist and I am aware of what our species is doing to itself, and we are NOT perpetuating ourselves.


And...we gather in such dense populations that we increase the spread of infectious disease to a point where we must innoculate - no other animal species does that, and none are at risk of losing a large number of their population due to any disease spreading.


The socieities we've created are artificial, and there is no way our natural selves could figure out how to live in them, so we must create rules and laws to avoid anarchy. Is it moral or ethical to obey those rules? Or just common sense, a mere appeal to the desire to remain alive?


Morals and ethics are geographically-dependent and also dependent on the wealth of the society. In the US, we would be shocked to have public restrooms that allow either gender. And yet I've been places where they exist - without stall walls. In the US, we are also acclimated to houses that are ridiculously huge compared to most of the world. Even in cultures we don't think of as all that backwards, having Mom, Dad and kids of both genders sharing a bed - not just a room - is common. I have been in places where the morning community shower and dressing room was both genders. The luxury of having separate quarters does have a financial cost - we Americans don't realize just how luxurious our lives are!

There are countries that consider themselves Christian where it is allowed for each man to have four wives...why? Medical science not equal to the US, high infant mortality, high rates of women dying in childbirth, and men going off to war so often that the ability to create a child is rare - these countries are keeping their population levels stable, not growing, by this encouragement of procreation. Are they immoral because they practice what we would call bigamy?


There are few universal morals. My own opinion is that the exhortion to not murder (aka unjustified killing) may well be one of them. I'd like to think so.

But I've been enough places, and seen enough differences in levels of resources available, to not think that most morals are, in fact, universal...with 7 billion people on the planet, there's a whole lot of variation and it's unlikely to find any rule that works for every place on the planet.

There are three kinds of business. Your business, my business and God's business. Whose business are you in? -Byron Katie
DustyDog is offline  
post #85 of 101 (permalink) Old 01-28-2017, 07:19 PM
Member
 
Bibi1031's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: texas
Posts: 1,406
Re: Ethics and Morality

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ntnuf View Post
I have to ask. I've always wanted to know. What would be okay to say when a person sneezes? I realize saying some form of "bless you", is unacceptable to an atheist. Does anything need said? I think not, if you know someone is an atheist. If you know someone is a believer, I think it is polite to say some form of "bless you".

What is respectful of all?
Maybe the answer to that is how my country says "bless you" nowadays. Many years ago, I learned that when someone sneezed folks would say "Jesuscristo" or "Jesucristo lo crie" (which is short for may Jesus Christ be with you and therefore bless you with good health). Now that in my country there are more religions and not everyone is Catholic or Christian we say "Salud" (which translates to may you have good health).

My peeps strive to be so politically correct and tolerant sometimes...sigh


Good things come to those who wait...greater things come to those who get off their a$$ and do anything to make it happen.

Last edited by Bibi1031; 01-28-2017 at 07:23 PM.
Bibi1031 is offline  
post #86 of 101 (permalink) Old 01-29-2017, 12:25 AM
Member
 
Bibi1031's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: texas
Posts: 1,406
Re: Ethics and Morality

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomDude View Post
Aye, but there lies a problem with that as well, for power as a rule, corrupts. An entity with that much power, who to keep it in line? Who to keep it accountable? The atrocities of God are many, and documented very well in the bible. Hence imagination is better than reality in this instance in my opinion. Double edged sword however, as can be seen with extremists. Overall though, extremists tend to be in the minority, hence religion, for me, is decidedly acceptable as a necessary "evil".
Who to keep it accountable? Who to keep it in line?...you say

Well God himself of course. God evolved when He came to Earth as Jesus Christ.

The atrocities of God are many, and documented very well in the bible....you say. Indeed, he was a God of war and a blood thirsty God, but all that changed when Jesus Christ came. All we humans had to do to attain the Kingdom of God was to believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and that He and the Father were one of the same. I, like 2.1 billion other Christians, believe this and we will go straight to heaven when we die. We don't have to do anything else to achieve this because all our sins have been forgiven through God himself in the form of Christ.

Now 13% of the world population are atheists and think like you. You don't believe there is a God; therefore, you quoting the bible is just for what? If you can't believe what you quoted, then you can't believe that Jesus Christ exists or the living God that now dwells among us here on Earth exists either. So how can you have a relationship with a living God you don't believe in? Why would he manifest Himself to you?

Now, 59% of the world population believe in God. The God you quoted is the same God Christianity (33%) , Islam (20%), and Judaism (.2%) believe in. (that is a total of 2.1 billion Christians, 1.3 billion Muslims, and 15 million Judaism). There are approximately 6 billion people in the world.

The difference between My religion and that of the Jewish and Islamic believers is that God's or Allah's promised Kingdom will be given to them on the day of reckoning more than likely. Jews don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah promised by God to come to Earth and Muhammad didn't believe Jesus Christ was God either just a mere prophet like him.

Now why am I putting out all these numbers that I have taken from Encyclopedia Britannica? To show that creation evolves; therefore our Creator evolves as well. The only constant is change!

Religion is not dying, it's actually growing world wide. Christianity is the top religion of the world. So when a person on death row converts to Christianity and accepts Jesus Christ as Lord, they have Aced the test! God has forgiven all their sins (murder, rape, theft, arson, etc) the Kingdom of God is theirs. They had a personal relationship with the living God and they believe, as I believe, as 2.1 billion believe. But that doesn't mean people will set them free from death row. Just like me trying to make you see what you can't see or believe in is a moot point.

Now if people believe in the God you quoted, why can't you forgive that God and embrace the one that came to Earth to reconcile with us? Well I guess it's the same reason why you can't have a personal relationship with the One that dwells among us either? I am not saying you per say OP, the "you" I am referring to is all those that don't believe what Christianity believes as true.

You can mock all you want, I don't care. I believe because I know the God I believe in personally. I didn't need all those numbers to convert me.

Good things come to those who wait...greater things come to those who get off their a$$ and do anything to make it happen.

Last edited by Bibi1031; 01-29-2017 at 04:20 PM.
Bibi1031 is offline  
post #87 of 101 (permalink) Old 01-29-2017, 05:23 AM
Member
 
2ntnuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: PA
Posts: 13,997
Re: Ethics and Morality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bibi1031 View Post
Maybe the answer to that is how my country says "bless you" nowadays. Many years ago, I learned that when someone sneezed folks would say "Jesuscristo" or "Jesucristo lo crie" (which is short for may Jesus Christ be with you and therefore bless you with good health). Now that in my country there are more religions and not everyone is Catholic or Christian we say "Salud" (which translates to may you have good health).

My peeps strive to be so politically correct and tolerant sometimes...sigh
This is what I was looking for. How do you pronounce the word, like "salute", but pronouncing the d instead of the t?

"I'm significant!! Screamed the dust speck." - Bill Watterson

"And this, too, shall pass away."
2ntnuf is offline  
post #88 of 101 (permalink) Old 01-29-2017, 05:35 AM
Member
 
As'laDain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,155
Re: Ethics and Morality

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ntnuf View Post
This is what I was looking for. How do you pronounce the word, like "salute", but pronouncing the d instead of the t?
sal, as in sally. ud as in mood.

no diphthong pronounced, as you would in salute.

"The ecologist is continually having to look at the aspects of nature with which he is unfamiliar and perforce must be an amateur for much of his working time.... professionals may carp at omissions, misconstructions, or even downright errors in these pages. perhaps ultimately they may forgive them for the sake of the overall vision that only the amateur, or the ecologist, blithely sets out to experience."G. Evelyn Hutchinson
As'laDain is online now  
post #89 of 101 (permalink) Old 01-29-2017, 05:49 AM
Member
 
2ntnuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: PA
Posts: 13,997
Re: Ethics and Morality

Thank you AD.

"I'm significant!! Screamed the dust speck." - Bill Watterson

"And this, too, shall pass away."
2ntnuf is offline  
post #90 of 101 (permalink) Old 01-30-2017, 11:18 AM Thread Starter
Member
 
Kivlor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rural Midwest
Posts: 2,735
Re: Ethics and Morality

Quote:
Originally Posted by tech-novelist View Post
Happy to. Here's the proof, in two parts.

Part I: The validity of the Golden Rule
1. The Golden Rule says "If something is hateful to you, do not do it to another".
2 Everyone believes in the Golden Rule as applied to others' actions toward them, so they are being logically inconsistent if they don't follow it themselves.
3. Thus we can assume the universal validity of the Golden Rule.

Part II: Proof of the NAP, given the validity of the Golden Rule
1. NAP requires only that you don't force anyone to do anything (or to refrain from doing anything).
2. It is logically impossible to want to be forced to do anything (or to refrain from doing anything), as anything you are willing to do (or refrain from doing) doesn't require force to get you to do it (or refrain from doing it).
3. Thus, forcing someone else to do something (or to refrain from doing something) violates the Golden Rule, because you are doing to someone else what you wouldn't want to have done to you.

Q. E. D.
Part I: Is this just an ad populum? How do you account for sociopaths, psychopaths, or masochists? If I like getting into fights, should I assume you will like it too? Is it's popularity the sole reason it is valid?

Part II: I will relate to you a story from last Fall--election night actually lol. I was out having dinner at a little restaurant, with my girlfriend and my family. As we sat, enjoying some chips and tea, there was a screeching of tires, as a young man was struck by a car. I left the table, and ran into the middle of the street to offer assistance, and found the teenager laying, in obvious pain, and definitely suffering a concussion. A nurse who happened to be driving by also came to help. The man was so injured as to not know his own name, or where he was, or what had happened. He wanted to stand, but if he had a spinal injury, that could be fatal. Now, according to the NAP, I should have let him stand up, and just walk it off. It became quite apparent that was a bad idea, and instead, I chose to violate the NAP, and lay on the ground, putting the guy in a gentle embrace, and carefully restrained him. He cried and begged for me to let him stand--and fortunately he was very weak from the accident, or I would have had to let him go, for fear of causing direct injury. Paramedics came, and they carried him off. I later visited him in the hospital, and he thanked me for restraining him against his will.

I obeyed the Golden Rule, and forsook the NAP, did I not? Was it wrong to hold him against his will?

Do you hear the people sing / Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people / Who are climbing to the light.
For the wretched of the earth / There is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end / And the sun will rise...
Kivlor is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why truth of cheating is better than not being told michzz Coping with Infidelity 158 03-23-2016 11:07 AM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome