100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: IS GOD RESPONSABLE FOR EVERYTHING OR NOT | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
if your speaking present day socoiety you may be correct but past cultures things were acceptable in thier moral beliefs. so your only partialy correct as todays present society here and now. So child molestation can be moral behavior in your opinion? That's a scary thought that people believe that. I know members of NAMBLA think that, but still. This is the reason I had to leave here, I should probably just never come back, there is no reasoning with some people. Just for the record, child molestation is wrong at all times and all places. No matter what the law says, the child cannot make those decisions for themselves and NOBODY has the right to make it for them. i wasn't speaking of child molestation per say spidey i was talking of morals of different cultures such as the pygmies who saw nothing morally wrong with capturing and killing there enimies and then boiling and eating them which would land you in prison in these tomes in the USA and other current socities. Other past cultures murdered people for sacrificial reasons and did not find it or look upon it as morally wrong and the list goes on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider I think AB did make a valid point. If there was no "evil" or morally objectionable behavior or presumed "sinners" wouldn't the Protestants and the rest of them be out of business? You need us.  Krimsa, Would a law making all women in the world sex slaves be morally right? If not, then doesn't that mean that there are objective morals allowing people their life and freedom? If you actually believe that if religion was wiped out and that there was a law making child molestation legal, then child molestation wouldn't be evil... well, I really don't know what to say. I can't imagine how someone's thinking can get so screwed up. Are you asking me that question or telling me? Well it should be no surprise to you spider that in fact one of my largest complaints with the bible is the misogynistic undertones in which it expounds. You dont really require for me to start posting these examples do you? Try scrolling back a few pages on this same thread. The ladies of Zion and what god felt appropriate to do with their "hidden parts" No, thats why Im not a Christian and I refuse to subscribe. I dont like it at all. I cant stand for that lack of basic understanding and compassion for half of humanity. It bothers me. I wont lie to you about that. I personally rely on my own conscious to provide me with an accurate moral compass to guide my action under questionable circumstances. I do not rely on religion to explain right and wrong or good and evil for me. I can distinguish this in my own head and heart. In fact all humans can unless they are mentally compromised in some respect. The only other psychiatric problem that I can think of off hand would be the designation of sociopath or another form of borderline personality disorder. Incidentally, its noteworthy that many people that have been associated with religious cults have been diagnosed sociopaths. So you do believe that everyone has a right to be treated fairly? Then going against that right would be an objective evil, would it not? To prevent a woman the right to drive or work or support herself is undeniably evil. We accept that today, but would it have been evil 500 years ago? Socially, no, but objectively yes. Women deserved to be treated fairly 2000 years ago, just as they deserve it today. So I'm really not sure why you were jumping on the "relative morality" bandwagon with AB and Tribo, except maybe you just wanted to disagree to be contrary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if your speaking present day socoiety you may be correct but past cultures things were acceptable in thier moral beliefs. so your only partialy correct as todays present society here and now. So child molestation can be moral behavior in your opinion? That's a scary thought that people believe that. I know members of NAMBLA think that, but still. This is the reason I had to leave here, I should probably just never come back, there is no reasoning with some people. Just for the record, child molestation is wrong at all times and all places. No matter what the law says, the child cannot make those decisions for themselves and NOBODY has the right to make it for them. i wasn't speaking of child molestation per say spidey i was talking of morals of different cultures such as the pygmies who saw nothing morally wrong with capturing and killing there enimies and then boiling and eating them which would land you in prison in these tomes in the USA and other current socities. Other past cultures murdered people for sacrificial reasons and did not find it or look upon it as morally wrong and the list goes on. Yes, they didn't see it as morally wrong...I know that. That was their belief, but were they right? Is it right to murder someone you don't like? The point I'm making is that there is a objective morality, which doesn't change. It's ALWAYS wrong to murder someone. ALWAYS. Doesn't change, regardless of what your neighbors believe or what your parents did. Everything that crosses that objective morality line is undeniably evil. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribo and AB, You both seem to believe that moral right is based on the law. In your opinion, is slavery right or wrong? It was legal before and it is illegal now. Do you think that because now it's illegal, it's wrong, but when it was legal it was right? It seems that your beliefs would result in a stagnant society that would always dwell within it's evil. Your beliefs would be counter-progress for a society. i believe that "moral rights" as you say [ i call them moral acceptence] are a societal thing, meaning that if you live in a society that thinks that eating your enemy is acceptable like the pygmies did not that long ago in borneo, then it is not immoral for them to do so. i think that civilizations that offered blood sacrifices to gods did not think of them as immoral acts when doing so, i think that people's who enslaved their enemies in there cultural times did not think of it as immoral, but!!!!! - to those who knew better and believed it to be wrong and went ahaead and did it anyway it was/is immoral as it could possibly be. just like the inquisition and witch burnings by so called christians. just like the wiping out of 2/3 rds of the native americans, shall i continue? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribo and AB, You both seem to believe that moral right is based on the law. In your opinion, is slavery right or wrong? It was legal before and it is illegal now. Do you think that because now it's illegal, it's wrong, but when it was legal it was right? It seems that your beliefs would result in a stagnant society that would always dwell within it's evil. Your beliefs would be counter-progress for a society. i believe that "moral rights" as you say [ i call them moral acceptence] are a societal thing, meaning that if you live in a society that thinks that eating your enemy is acceptable like the pygmies did not that long ago in borneo, then it is not immoral for them to do so. i think that civilizations that offered blood sacrifices to gods did not think of them as immoral acts when doing so, i think that people's who enslaved their enemies in there cultural times did not think of it as immoral, but!!!!! - to those who knew better and believed it to be wrong and went ahaead and did it anyway it was/is immoral as it could possibly be. just like the inquisition and witch burnings by so called christians. just like the wiping out of 2/3 rds of the native americans, shall i continue? 2/3 of the native americans huh? ok then lets discuss this further, was it wrong for native americans to commit grizzly murders of women and children even though in their eyes it was ok? nope was it ok for americans to poson the native americans? nope everyone is wrong all the time, face facts its how it works,lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider I think AB did make a valid point. If there was no "evil" or morally objectionable behavior or presumed "sinners" wouldn't the Protestants and the rest of them be out of business? You need us. Krimsa, Would a law making all women in the world sex slaves be morally right? If not, then doesn't that mean that there are objective morals allowing people their life and freedom? If you actually believe that if religion was wiped out and that there was a law making child molestation legal, then child molestation wouldn't be evil... well, I really don't know what to say. I can't imagine how someone's thinking can get so screwed up. Are you asking me that question or telling me? Well it should be no surprise to you spider that in fact one of my largest complaints with the bible is the misogynistic undertones in which it expounds. You dont really require for me to start posting these examples do you? Try scrolling back a few pages on this same thread. The ladies of Zion and what god felt appropriate to do with their "hidden parts" No, thats why Im not a Christian and I refuse to subscribe. I dont like it at all. I cant stand for that lack of basic understanding and compassion for half of humanity. It bothers me. I wont lie to you about that. I personally rely on my own conscious to provide me with an accurate moral compass to guide my action under questionable circumstances. I do not rely on religion to explain right and wrong or good and evil for me. I can distinguish this in my own head and heart. In fact all humans can unless they are mentally compromised in some respect. The only other psychiatric problem that I can think of off hand would be the designation of sociopath or another form of borderline personality disorder. Incidentally, its noteworthy that many people that have been associated with religious cults have been diagnosed sociopaths. So you do believe that everyone has a right to be treated fairly? Then going against that right would be an objective evil, would it not? To prevent a woman the right to drive or work or support herself is undeniably evil. We accept that today, but would it have been evil 500 years ago? Socially, no, but objectively yes. Women deserved to be treated fairly 2000 years ago, just as they deserve it today. So I'm really not sure why you were jumping on the "relative morality" bandwagon with AB and Tribo, except maybe you just wanted to disagree to be contrary. No Im not arguing with you. Im just letting you know the genesis behind my dissatisfaction with the spirit of Christianity. Its nothing as a female I can be part of. Not ever. Its beastly and cruel. Are you attempting to say that culturally this was how women were treated and it was nothing out of the ordinary? Well thats true, however explain why YOUR GOD expounds this treatment and cruelty in his supposed divinely inspired books? Unless it was men writing this stuff. Then you are off the hook. Free yourself and choose your own way. Thats what I have done. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
indeed krimsa! and whats keeping people from worshipping in their own way? if you need god fine have him, but why do you need to hop along the bandwagon and go to "holy" spots liek church and sing out loud? is it just posing? is it a candid video shoot? are you trying to show everyone else youre more of a believer since you sing louder? i dont egt it, i think organized religion is a blight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if your speaking present day socoiety you may be correct but past cultures things were acceptable in thier moral beliefs. so your only partialy correct as todays present society here and now. So child molestation can be moral behavior in your opinion? That's a scary thought that people believe that. I know members of NAMBLA think that, but still. This is the reason I had to leave here, I should probably just never come back, there is no reasoning with some people. Just for the record, child molestation is wrong at all times and all places. No matter what the law says, the child cannot make those decisions for themselves and NOBODY has the right to make it for them. i wasn't speaking of child molestation per say spidey i was talking of morals of different cultures such as the pygmies who saw nothing morally wrong with capturing and killing there enimies and then boiling and eating them which would land you in prison in these tomes in the USA and other current socities. Other past cultures murdered people for sacrificial reasons and did not find it or look upon it as morally wrong and the list goes on. Yes, they didn't see it as morally wrong...I know that. That was their belief, but were they right? Is it right to murder someone you don't like? The point I'm making is that there is a objective morality, which doesn't change. It's ALWAYS wrong to murder someone. ALWAYS. Doesn't change, regardless of what your neighbors believe or what your parents did. Everything that crosses that objective morality line is undeniably evil. spidey it was morally acceptable for them if not they would not have done it in the name of their "GODS" or in their cultures. if someone tells you your god demands a living sacrifice and you believe in that god - then is it morally wrong? be careful becuase your god says and does this also!! my opinion as to whats morally right is based on what i have expierienced in my life as to personal things ans what i've seen and heard - to me no one has the right to take anothers life for any reason - but thats me i donot push my moral take on things onto others. nor should anyone abuse another, but i still believe that one has the right to defend what is theirs from others who would unrightfully take or use or abuse that which was. but this is in this society that i have been raised inif it had been another i could see things very differently, so whats your point? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribo and AB, You both seem to believe that moral right is based on the law. In your opinion, is slavery right or wrong? It was legal before and it is illegal now. Do you think that because now it's illegal, it's wrong, but when it was legal it was right? It seems that your beliefs would result in a stagnant society that would always dwell within it's evil. Your beliefs would be counter-progress for a society. i believe that "moral rights" as you say [ i call them moral acceptence] are a societal thing, meaning that if you live in a society that thinks that eating your enemy is acceptable like the pygmies did not that long ago in borneo, then it is not immoral for them to do so. i think that civilizations that offered blood sacrifices to gods did not think of them as immoral acts when doing so, i think that people's who enslaved their enemies in there cultural times did not think of it as immoral, but!!!!! - to those who knew better and believed it to be wrong and went ahaead and did it anyway it was/is immoral as it could possibly be. just like the inquisition and witch burnings by so called christians. just like the wiping out of 2/3 rds of the native americans, shall i continue? 2/3 of the native americans huh? ok then lets discuss this further, was it wrong for native americans to commit grizzly murders of women and children even though in their eyes it was ok? nope was it ok for americans to poson the native americans? nope everyone is wrong all the time, face facts its how it works,lol. circumstances will always rule the direction taken by man for good or evil, right or wrong - with this i agree. to me war is not logical but - it is rationable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its logical, but butchering enemies who dont do it back is cruel, ntm killing their families. furthermore, war is not rational, if it was rational itd be settled by duels. not millions of men dying in one day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its logical, but butchering enemies who dont do it back is cruel, ntm killing their families. furthermore, war is not rational, if it was rational itd be settled by duels. not millions of men dying in one day. read history the NA's did not start the slaughter of women and children the europeans did, they retlaiated yes, i think you would have to. rational in the sense of if someone is trying to hurt you or your family or your town,state,nation, and destroy your way of life it is humanly rational to retaliate - if it is between two people then yes dueling if no other way is seen, is more "civilized", not rational. if you think leaders are going to put themselves on the line in a one on one you've watched to many movies/videos |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh lordy once again youve missed my whole point,lol.
nothign in war is rational. none of it, the beginnning or the end, whereas if it was looked at rationally settling things with a 1v1 is more sensible and intelligent. and it doesnt have to be the leaders you dolt. honestly who even said it would be?>! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well we can start another post on this if you like it has no room here i'll leave it up to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i could really care less, i just hate when my point isnt clear,lol. **** it. god is not responsible since he doesnt exist. thats ym 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i could really care less, i just hate when my point isnt clear,lol. **** it. god is not responsible since he doesnt exist. thats ym 2 cents. opinion noted!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Mon 10/20/08 03:55 PM
|
|
THE OP Ladies and gentlemen - stick with the subject at hand - start new OP's if you want to talk about other things - thnx
ok here's the crux of my OP for all who are arguing about side issues OK? god created everything correct? in doing so he created the potential for sin to enter into that creation by giving men free will and free choice correct? then if sin did enter he is responsible for the sin entering correct? WHY? if he had not created as he chose to do, then sin as we know or think of it could not exist - thus he is responsible for it and everything else in creation you can not separate one part of creation out and say NO he's not responsible for sin, no more than you can separate out goodness and say he's not responsible for good. bottom line? "GOD" is responsible for allowing sin to come about to allow man to be tempted by another of his creations/Satan whom already had sinned before man was ever created, so he had full knowledge as to what could go wrong beforehand and still want forward with his plans, thus god is guilty of allowing the potential for sin to exist and be acted upon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then if there is a god how about this:
youre saying by knowing of sin and allowing us freedom to choose he is wrong? no from my time reading the bible this is all a test of sorts, to see if we can avoid sin and continue life in his "name". ok fine then. apparently god could wipe all sin out so hes an ass fo rnot doing it, but its not his fault for wanting us to be able to choose. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Mon 10/20/08 04:03 PM
|
|
then if there is a god how about this: youre saying by knowing of sin and allowing us freedom to choose he is wrong? no from my time reading the bible this is all a test of sorts, to see if we can avoid sin and continue life in his "name". ok fine then. apparently god could wipe all sin out so hes an ass fo rnot doing it, but its not his fault for wanting us to be able to choose. thnx bergeia, the "TEST" as you say is after the fact my friend, i'm talking before man was created god had intentioned to let the potential for sin to be in the mix. it is his "fault" that "because" he wanted specific results to occur which he knew of in advance of any creative measures with man that sin was able to be acted upon by man. no creation of man - no sin - i could care less what his plans were i am talking of him being "resposible" for bringing it in to potential for use. guilty as charges! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh hes guilty as are we all. i personally refuse ot believe that if there is a god hes all perfect and emrciful. hell in the old testament he was prone to rage and jealousy. those sure are sins according to the bible even. so i imagine he knew it was inevitable?
but agian this all depends on there even being a god,lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 10/20/08 04:30 PM
|
|
if your speaking present day socoiety you may be correct but past cultures things were acceptable in thier moral beliefs. so your only partialy correct as todays present society here and now. So child molestation can be moral behavior in your opinion? That's a scary thought that people believe that. I know members of NAMBLA think that, but still. This is the reason I had to leave here, I should probably just never come back, there is no reasoning with some people. Just for the record, child molestation is wrong at all times and all places. No matter what the law says, the child cannot make those decisions for themselves and NOBODY has the right to make it for them. i wasn't speaking of child molestation per say spidey i was talking of morals of different cultures such as the pygmies who saw nothing morally wrong with capturing and killing there enimies and then boiling and eating them which would land you in prison in these tomes in the USA and other current socities. Other past cultures murdered people for sacrificial reasons and did not find it or look upon it as morally wrong and the list goes on. Yes, they didn't see it as morally wrong...I know that. That was their belief, but were they right? Is it right to murder someone you don't like? The point I'm making is that there is a objective morality, which doesn't change. It's ALWAYS wrong to murder someone. ALWAYS. Doesn't change, regardless of what your neighbors believe or what your parents did. Everything that crosses that objective morality line is undeniably evil. Well I would agree spider except in the case of assisted suicide. If someone wants to take their own life due to serious injury, ongoing pain, trauma or sickness, I feel they should have that right. I am a firm believer in human dignity and that should be respected and upheld under all circumstances. Aside from that, I would consider murder morally wrong though in the case of warfare, this is sanctioned by the federal government. It is a call to duty. I would prefer it never had to take place but we dont live in never never land and sometimes it is unavoidable. I respect the men and women who take this enormous burden on for the rest of us. |
|
|
|
|
