Man's morality

[Darkstar]

Only if you redefine 'right' as 'what god wants'.

In the scope of eternity, that is the only 'right' that matters.

Might makes right, hm?

Hence Honor amongest theives. which is a principle in concept only. Because ultimatly a theif will sell out a brother if in the end it belfits himself. If you think about it this honor' is akin to man's morality. fore it too is a practice that only truly works in concept only.

That would apply to any law. Obviously someone will break the law at some point.

I should clarify: I did not think that a baby could be aborted at birth legally. And they can't.

not since 2005

2003...but whatever.

, but before then back to 1973 it was perfectly legal, and morally acceptiable, It was GW Bush who made it illegal, but give it time. articals like this on:http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/11/27/the-gop-s-late-term-abortion-strategy-is-backfiring.html are building a 'moral arguement that says killing babies is not only justifiable but a moral mandate for low income women who need this option.

Only because you continue to insist on calling fetuses babies. But I don't think there is a point in debating that further.

It's the fact that we did justify this act for more than 30 years, which made it moral

Did it? Can something go from being moral to immoral? I wouldn't think so, just our perception of it. In the case of a partial birth abortion, we would be dealing with an actual developed baby, as opposed to a fetus. I don't know why anyone ever supported it in the first place.

What if that baby were patient zero for the next zombie apocalypse?

and what if he were the next Hitler? Or what if as Hitler said babies who do not meet certain physical standards or cultrual back grounds are not really human but human roaches who are a plague of the country, and if we do not kill them we will all die -or- what if a baby that get's it brain sucked out would have provided the zombie vaccine, and God used the Zombie apocalypse to punish a race of baby killing people?

Or one even better What if God knew that one such Child would exist, or better yet a whole race of them would be spawn from a particular tribe or people, wouldn't He then be 'morally obligated' (Per your standard) To kill that baby or whole race of people to save 5000 years of people yet to come?

I like what if's, I can play this game all day. But in the end it is just a game. At some point you have to put games down and look at reality.

Uh...isn't that what I basically said? That it was just an example to show how said law wasn't absolute?

I don't actually mean to suggest that any such thing is likely, but rather that even this judgment is technically not absolute. I would not argue that "killing babies is generally not immoral" but rather that a partially developed fetus isn't what one might consider a baby.

EXACTLY, That Is Why The Babies Are Dehumanized In This Proceedure.

Are we dehumanizing egg cells too? What if I kill an egg cell and a spermatozoa? Then is it murder?

Another Example If A Man assaults a pregnet woman and the baby dies it is then refered to as a baby and the man is charged with Murder (It happened near where I live a few years ago) A baby's status/humanity has nothing to with gestation, but whether or not it is wanted by the mother. So tell me some more about this self righteous 'morality' you all use to judge God.

Hosea 13:16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.”

I guess this doesn't count? Or is it because the fetus has sinned?

(A fetus that, if born naturally at that moment, could survive outside the womb, is a different story.)Actually it is not. There are many who lived, and they have heroundous stories where after the proceedure they were discarded in the trash bin, and then left to die, only to be rescued by a janitor or nurse. Google saline abortion survivors. I heard one guy speak, he has chemical burn scars over the majority of his body. I don't remember his name but He should be hard to find. He has reaserched this and has terriable numbers for the survival rates a few years ago.

I meant morally, not in terms of how the abortion was carried out. Removing a fetus that is undeveloped is one thing, directly killing a viable fetus is another. Killing a viable fetus that survives an abortion would, or at least should be considered infanticide.

Also, does this mean that organisms without a circulatory system (or more specifically, a heart within said system) are not really alive?

They can't be aborted, so how does that even tie into any part of this conversation or are you just reaching?

I guess you're right that they can't be aborted. I was just curious, as "heartbeat" could not work as a universal definition of life.

Under the right circumstances, yes. And no, I don't mean WWII concentration camps.

Those camps are examples of how a soceity will decline morally if left unchecked. Meaning if there are not any absolutes.

I guess the golden rule is pretty solid (but again gets tricky around justice).

I'm pretty sure it existed before Christianity. It also basically seems like common sense.

In a soceity with declining morals 'common sense' becomes less and less common. At some point, the 'golden rule' will also become obsolete.

I won't disagree with that.

On the other hand, I wouldn't say that the existence of abortion shows how all of society is immoral (though the illegal partial birth method is rather sickening, and I personally would not encourage late term abortions unless absolutely necessary).

That's just it. I am saying the self righteousness that spawns morality, means that 'soceity' is NEVER Immoral unless judged so by a higher power or in the case of WWII Germany a Stronger league of nations.

Or any outside source, really. Though they might be using a different yardstick to determine morality by. One must be careful when developing one.

If Abortion was immoral, then it would not be legal.

Being a douchebag isn't illegal.

But again according to the links I posted there are studies underway to justify the 'morality' of partial birth abortions.

I don't think that is what the article was saying. I am pretty sure that it was arguing for easier access to early abortions to reduce late term abortions.

Again I say all of this to say that there is a very distince difference between Man's morality and God's righteousness.

To which I will not disagree. Yet, if you continue to insist that god's righteousness is better because it is absolute (barring god's nonexistence), I will continue to argue that being absolute is not necessarily a good thing. Something that is absolute and in error can never be amended.

[Angrboda]

I admit, I'm not particularly liking the idea of reading through this thread since my initial response. Can anyone condense the convo. for me?

"No."

[ThomM]

Ah - but WHERE did you get those claims about the Morality of GOD?

Certainly NOT from the bible - since the gods "morality" wavers and changes constantly.

YOU see - that is the problem. WE have actually read the bible and can clearly see the LACK of morality in many of the things the god supposedly did -

Example - it is accepted that a BABY cannot sin - they are not of age to be morally responsible.

WE also accept that killing people who have done NOTHING to deserve killing is called MURDER.

So - where were all the Babies and young children taken in the fairy tale of the great flood? Or the Sodom and Gomorrah destruction? You cannot say that the god KNEW that all of them would sin - since they are supposed to have FREE WILL - and therefore can only be judged based on what they actually did.

In the fairy tale of the Passover, what did the average Eldest child of the Egyptians do to deserve to be Killed? - regardless of age. Since they were not in control of their Pharaoh - nothing is the correct answer. And remember - some of then would have been babies and children as well.

Any god who "inspires" a psalm that says
"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock." - is certainly not moral - of any type

[Drich]

actually I don't. That is why I asked.

So you admit you do not know what you are doing?

If I did I wouldn't be so willing to throw pearls before swine.

[Angrboda]

So you admit you do not know what you are doing?

If I did I wouldn't be so willing to throw pearls before swine.

That explains why you throw so much shit around when your toys get thrown out of the pram.

[Drich]

There is no doubt that there are people who were atheists (did not believe in any sort of gods) and had a religious conversion and are now believers. People can and do have profound changes in their thinking. I do, however, think that ex-atheists are rare. Usually I suspect that this declaration is a lie. Here are the reasons:

1. Most (but not all) of the "ex-atheists" can't provide a description of their lack of faith that seems sincere and is consistent with descriptions from current atheists.

Fallacy of composition

2. The numbers don't work. Atheists are a growing population in most countries. If all these "former atheists" were genuine, we would see the opposite trend.

Argumentum ad populum

3. Religion follows fads. I remember back in the 70s-90s there were all these "ex-satanists" -- after the satanic panic bullshit ran its course and the new atheist movement took hold all these "ex-satanists" vanished and "ex-atheists." started appearing.

This 'Base rate fallacy' is easily explained away. If there was a surge of Satanists, then there would be more people who worship satan that could potentially be converted. Likewise is there are more atheists, then that would broaden the pool of likly converts as well.

4. It's a cheap ploy "I used to be an atheist just like you so i understand where you are coming from." Bullshit.

'Appeal to probablity'

I did not say that there are no ex-atheists. But that they are extremely rare.

If one were an atheist, and were converted, then wouldn't it be plausiable that this person would have a heart for his former douche bag peers, and want to spend his ministry trying to help the one or two who may have been just angry at religion as he was?

Ex-christians, however, are becoming more and more common as the days go by thanks to people like Drich who make xtianity so repulsive that normal people will have nothing to do with that shit.

The primary problem with Christianity is that 'Christian's' are not teaching from the bible any more. They are telling people what they want to hear. The problem there is that when the people being told what they want to hear, find out what they have been told is not true, they feel betrayed and want to seperate from the church.

I am not one who will say something just because people want to hear it.

[houseofcantor]

To reiterate -

and if the toils of your hands and heart are found to be morally objectionable by other people?

Fuck 'em.

Is the answer spoken by your actions. We're both content that each of our moral paradigms is correct; however, your implied denigration of "pearls and swine" is contrasted by the observation that only one of them things can be eaten.

Unsustaining, your pearls.

[Angrboda]

I am not one who will say something just because people want to hear it.

This appears to be the exact opposite of what you said earlier this week, when you stated you were here because you thought there were people who wanted to hear your message, and you were simply "pandering" to their needs.

[Whateverist]

So you admit you do not know what you are doing?

If I did I wouldn't be so willing to throw pearls before swine.

Pearls? I didn't see any pearls. I thought you were tossing scripture around in order to make conversions. I keep telling you, I have plenty of ass-wipe.

[tokutter]

I am not one who will say something just because people want to hear it.

This appears to be the exact opposite of what you said earlier this week, when you stated you were here because you thought there were people who wanted to hear your message, and you were simply "pandering" to their needs.

YES .....A WALKING TALKING GISH GALLUPING CONTRADICTION

who has all his own "stats" at the ready......gods little "designated hitter"

BUT HEY: He's only here to supply god answers to people who don't want/need god

mmmmmmmeeeee also thinks he has probably tried this on christian forums......but his flavor of the christian mind think got showed the door


.