20 Jul 15
Originally posted by CalJustMy point was that it is impossible to compare the morals of one species to the next.
Just a thought - no sane human being would even keep a guinea pig, or a fly, and torture them for years on end (if they can be brought back to life after being killed).
Not to mention for ever and ever...
But god does that to people??
What you (and I) would call torture, this "god" might call punishment.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
20 Jul 15
Originally posted by Great King RatWrong.
My point was that it is impossible to compare the morals of one species to the next.
What you (and I) would call torture, this "god" might call punishment.
Morality is about how you treat other beings. Primarily but not exclusively sentient beings.
It is morally wrong for us to torture [say] a dog because that dog can experience suffering and
torturing that dog seriously negatively effects it's wellbeing.
The fact that a dog cannot [probably] make moral decisions of it's own, or conceptualise the
problem at all is irrelevant.
Christians are often so proud of their 'golden rule' that states that you should treat others as
you would wish yourself to be treated'.
This is wrong, You should treat people not as you would wish to be treated but as THEY would
wish to be treated. Rather than selfishly assume that everyone else in the world thinks and
feels as you do.
Once you realise this then it becomes obvious that the moral guide for determining whether
a gods [or any moral agents] actions toward us are moral or not is whether those actions
positively or negatively effect our wellbeing... Which we can objectively determine.
Whether something would be appropriate moral treatment for another god is irrelevant to determining
if it is appropriate moral treatment of humans.
20 Jul 15
Originally posted by Great King RatThat is probably because you guys do not have the mind of God.
My point was that it is impossible to compare the morals of one species to the next.
What you (and I) would call torture, this "god" might call punishment.
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
(1 Corinthians 2:11 NASB)
Originally posted by SuzianneHow so?
You're a disgusting person if you think this has any similarity to reality.
Prison is the ultimate nanny state where everyone is equal and "safe".
Freedom is what brings about inequality. People make too much money and lve better than others when given freedom of choice.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeOK then, where are they at?
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" Samuel 15.3
What message did this send to the ancient world?
Oh, that's right, they are all gone. It's not like Islam's open season on infidels 24/7 till the end of time
Don't forget Sodom and the rest. 😉
Then came Jesus, who gave us a better world and commandments.
Atheists just love to ignore this fact.
Originally posted by Great King RatI'm not making myself clear. It is the obsever's morality that flexes.
The problem here is that deity D is entirely different from persons A to C and arguably can’t be judged the same way.
For instance, you wouldn’t think of keeping a human being in a cage in your living room, but you may very well do so with a guinea pig.
Likewise, you wouldn’t think of killing a person when he’s being annoying (RJHinds comes to m ...[text shortened]... ly have an electrical fly swapper at home with which you roasty-toasty flies every now and then.
The observer looks at person A a declares what they are doing to be morally unacceptable; then they look a deity D doing the same thing for the same reason and they judge the deity to be morally acceptable.
They are flexing their morality of the same action, being carried out for the same reasons but by different people.
Originally posted by whodeyHe didn't ask you about what your mandate from God to kill is or isn't. You are still avoiding the question.
Christians do not have an open ended mandate to kill. Jesus even said those that wish to murder should be shunned.
We also have the example of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son. God stopped him.
This sent a message to the ancient world that child sacrifice, which was rampant in that time, was not acceptable.
Originally posted by RJHindsYes praise Jehovah, hallelujah! All hail to the loving Jesus....
Is "torment" the same as "torture" to you?
A place has been created by God for those, like Satan and his demons, who will not be rehabilitated. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. This is the second death.
HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
meanwhile back at the camp: Burn you unbelieving bastards burn!
What a joke.
Originally posted by divegeesterSo when RJ said 'it depends' you are suggesting he meant 'it depends on who is carrying out the punishment' and not 'it depends on what they believe or not believe'?
I see what you are saying but my premise is:
Person A finds atrocity B morally unacceptable if committed by Person C, however if atrocity B is committed by deity D, then person A finds it morally acceptable. There are no conditions as such, merely a flexing of Person A's moral values.
Agree?
What are your own beliefs about morality? Do you apply morality to God? If God were to act in a way you currently believe to be immoral, would you say 'God acted immorally' or would you say 'I am wrong about morality' or would you say 'my morality doesn't apply to God.'?
20 Jul 15
Originally posted by divegeesterThat might be true if "deity D" is a person. But he's not, he's a deity. Which is your given.
I'm not making myself clear. It is the obsever's morality that flexes.
The observer looks at person A a declares what they are doing to be morally unacceptable; then they look a deity D doing the same thing for the same reason and they judge the deity to be morally acceptable.
They are flexing their morality of the same action, being carried out for the same reasons but by different people.