Man's morality

[Darkstar]

Also, you response seems to imply that god made his standard impossible to follow on purpose.

No, Adam followed for some time. It's just because we have been born unto sin, we are no longer able to meet that standard.

I never really understood how people can be born with original sin (and just that one in particular), but I guess that's probably irrelevant.

And, if I might speculate a bit, not merely impossible because no one would be good enough to follow it, but impossible because it is flawed.

Finish your thought, Flawed how?

I bolded part of your post to demonstrate this. Even when it is obviously right to make an exception to a rule, god won't allow for it.

So? You already said you will always fall short of god's standard too, so why is this relevant?

Because without absolutes one is subject to the Mob's mentality.

One cannot have absolutes. I mean, you can, you'll just be wrong whenever an exception to the rule should be made.

And why is this bad?

No accountablity, No truth, which literally means anything can go. A soceity like this can even justify the slaughter of millions of babies every year, and still feel they have the 'moral high ground.'

And before someone invokes Godwin's law, the Jews did not agree that their being killed was moral. Of course, a community could agree that people outside their community be mistreated and still be internally consistent, but that's a whole other can of worms.

No same can just a little deeper into said can. Put your philosphy aside and look at what History tells us has happened in this very instance. All a soceity has to do is dehumanize a certain portion of the population and all of their human rights are now forfeit.

Then they're just living by a cruel double-standard. They are clearly breaking the golden rule, unless they themselves would want to be dehumanized.[/quote]

It happened with the Jews in Germany and it happens with unwanted babies in our current culture. all 'we' had to do is strip them of thier humanity, and relable them a fetus which is latin for baby or offspring, but because we changed the meaning of this foreign word to mean a collection of cells somehow the baby is no longer human, and can be killed upto and including the birthing process.

I did not think that a baby could be aborted at birth. Only a very small portion of abortions are late term. Regardless, one could ask "If I were a fetus, how would I feel if people decided to abort me?" Well, you wouldn't feel anything, you wouldn't think anything, you wouldn't even be aware of your own existence.

Don't get me wrong, I can see where you're coming from (on this particular issue). It would be better to try to prevent the pregnancy in the first place rather than have an abortion (which is why I don't understand why the church won't just cut its losses and allow birth control). I have to ask, though, how far back do we go? If we call a fetus, which has no self-awareness and is not conscious a person, should we go back another step and call the egg a person? How about the sperm? If abortion is an abomination, then why does god allow miscarriages (rhetorical)?

Called it.

I did that with my dad one time. While he was asleep I taped a foot ball game I had already watched and when he woke played it off as a live game, and then proceeded to 'call' every major play before it happened.

In the end he figured it out. the lesson? it's only 'calling it' if you have no way of predicting the outcome.

Wow, I can't believe this just happened! It never even occurred to me that you would assume I read ahead first! (I really didn't read ahead but I don't know how this didn't occur to me)

Or, you know, human empathy. The golden rule is a pretty good moral yardstick in most cases.

Only when compareing apples to apples or humans to humans. All it takes (as history has shown) is a little propaganda, from the majority and any group can be dehumanized, and slated for mass murder.

That, then, is not a failure of the golden rule itself, but a failure of people to adhere to it.