Which commandments do you think are superior; Yahweh’s or Gn

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't mean they believe it, I mean they accept it as literal and reject it on such terms. As you reject the genocidal Yahweh-führer.



I don't think we have that capability. Where this comes up most is the problem of evil: if God is good, why does evil exist? Why doesn't he punish them? Why does he allow them to commit evil acts in the first place. From the human point of view such a problem is so simple. But can you even imagine a God's point of view? Can you excise evil from humanity? In doing so would you change humans so much that it would more or less amount to killing them all and replacing them with something else? If humanity is prevented from evil by some force, can they really be said to be good? Do they become no more than cattle with no free will? The problem is much more complex for a God-like being, I can't even pretend to understand such a problem fully. I like to see the Noah's Ark story (pretty sure it didn't happen as told) as God confronting the problem of evil and deeming that particular solution as the wrong one.



I would, whatever the child's statistical chances in life, that does not justify taking away his or her life.



Hehe no doubt, I've never had any Pauline visions or visits from arch-angels. But the idea of a possible higher court really focuses the mind on moral problems.
To take it to a civilisational level, imagine if you will two identical moral codes of your choosing. One code, however, says that death is not the end and you will be judged after you die on your behaviour in this life. Given man's nature which version of the code is more likely to survive and be properly defended? Which one is more likely to be followed properly? I think the answer is obvious and needs no reply.



This is a human problem, not a religious one. One I actually believe is more common in those who don't have the focusing effect of belief in a higher power. We find all kinds of ways to justify wrongdoing, believer or non-believer. Again abortion springs to mind. It's not murder says the rationalist, it's not a human, it's just a blob. Ok it might be murder, but it's fine in this instance because the feelings of the woman matter more, or probably the child will become a criminal loser anyway. Actually it's a moral good because the discomfort I might endure supersedes that right of the other to live, my body my rules.

I don't know about you but I detect a hint of self-justification here, a tint of rationalisation perhaps...

I prefer to remain in reality and not fantasy so have no need for an invisible God whose ways I cannot know.

All God's are man made and I think it best to have a God based on man than a man based on some imaginary standard.

If we go with the imaginary standard Yahweh set for instance, we cannot forgive ourselves and others for sin as we have to rely on forgiveness by another imaginary Jesus hero. That is why it is best to set human standards for humans.

I agree with you that if we were to take the evil out of man, we would destroy our species. Human to human evil is basically the competition part of us as we evolve and if we only cooperated we would go extinct.

I like that you also cherish life. But how far are you willing to force others to do the same?

You say you would force a woman to have a baby. Would you force her to breast feed if she refused? Would you force her to feed the baby milk if she refused? Would you force he to change diapers and care for the baby if she refused? Would you pay for whatever the baby needs if she was an addict and spent all she had on drugs?

Do you see that if you force her to have a baby, you also have a responsibility to that baby?

Many pro-life organizations promise financial physical help to women before the abortion but do not keep their promises afterwards because it is just to hard, if not impossible, when their help/interference ends when the baby is born.

Are you ready to basically adopt the child you force to live in poverty and worse? Are you ready to put your money where you mouth is?

I am not as I would not wish hardship on any woman and baby unless I was fully committed to basically adopt her and her baby.

I also, as noted, believe that our bodies are our own and not community property.

Regards
DL

That is your choice and I can see why you would choose it, it's not unreasonable. Though I personally think it is inferior to a God-centric belief system.



Adoption is absolutely preferable to killing and yes I'd be willing to pay whatever taxes were necessary to take care of unwanted children. It would be money far better spent compared to what most governments spend their money on these days.



This an interesting topic, it might even warrant it's own thread. To make a short counter argument though: What you do with your body affects other people around you, any decision you make cannot be made as though you were the sole person on earth. People do have a moral claim over what you choose to do with your body. Some examples:

Let's say you are married, and you support a wife with a couple of children. Your wife has a perfectly reasonable moral basis to ask you not to drink yourself to the point where you liver packs up. She relies on you for support, and she loves you, presumably, and does not want you to kill yourself. Your children have a similar claim.

Society has a sound moral basis to prevent people taking drugs. Continued abuse can leave the drug taker a burden on society, on the healthcare system, and on their families.

Abortion: while the unborn cannot articulate a moral argument, others can do so on their behalf. The mother's body, no matter how the baby was conceived, now supports the unborn child. It is perfectly correct to tell the mother that it is a moral evil to terminate her pregnancy, which would kill her unborn child.

Gnostic Christianity is based on basically using Jesus as the archetypal good man that he was meant to be and not the impossible miracle working man God that Christianity invented. We use him in the way shown in these quotes.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Better to try to be the best human that you can be than to try and fail to be an impossible man God.

You might remember that coaches who train athletes try to get their guys and gals to visualize themselves winning or reaching their goals so as to help them focus and give their best performance.

That is what Gnostic Christianity teaches as well.



Especially at this point in time in the U.S. and other countries, there is a lot of discrimination by race and color going on. In my own Canadian country, residential schools and orphanages that killed babies was not uncommon.

I do not think you could get your population to fund all the orphanages that would end being full of non-whites crack babies and other unwanted children. And if you somehow could put the cash and decent resources together, unless you could fund better education than in the rank and file, you would just end with more ghettos. I wish it were not so but think that history shows that what you propose is not viable.


[/quote]

I agree that there are moral arguments that can be made against abortion. There are also arguments against taking dominion away from individual over their own bodies.

Our level of freedom has always been what we create our laws around. So far, in the West vis-à-vis abortion, the right of individual women to dominion over her body has outweighed the desires of other to remove that dominion.

Persuasion and monetary support by those who do not believe in abortion is the only way to reverse that trend and as you can see, those people are not stepping up enough to shift the trend.

If you and people of like mind would create a place for birth and care of those who you wish to save, to the point of making it the best choice for women, you would win. You have not.

You see abortion as evil and must convince enough people that for that evil to grow, all good people need do is not put funding in place to end that evil.

Most just want their way without paying and that way has been rejected by the courts and majority.

Remember that ----- build it and they will come?

That applies to a good place to be for those who face abortion and their now live children.

You and I would make it so but cannot. We would have to reduce the racism in most states by a lot and I cannot see that happening any time soon.

Regards
DL

I don't see a problem with aiming for impossible standards. It's not as though Christianity promises punishment if you try and fail. Only if you choose not to try and revel in unrepentant failure.

Back on abortion: You drift from morality into other problems with the world and what is legally practical, while these are of course real concerns, practicality should not feed back into morality in my opinion. If instead we were talking about killing 4 year olds would your arguments about the problems of racism and the unwillingness of people to pay for these children still apply?

Edit: Let me restate that. For someone to say we should tolerate something immoral either because it is impractical to prosecute or it will prevent other wrongs is fine. I consider that a real argument, I probably wouldn't accept it myself for abortion but in other areas of life, it's perfectly sane. I'd just like to know if you would apply your arguments above if we were talking about the born, instead of the unborn.

To set impossible standards for children is child abuse and a good road to their suicide. Egos, to be healthy, must be bolstered by success and not constant failure to reach an impossible goal.



I disagree and offer this real world situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlKGHAHSOtI

Do you think it immoral for those women to not want to have their family live in poverty?

[/quote]

Yes. Children older than that were killed in residential schools.

We can argue about that being ancient history but the racism that cause that evil is just as rampant today as back then and many still want to keep segregation alive so as to insure that white people get and stay ahead of other colors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c58dXVY1vQ

Regards
DL

I'm skeptical of this myself, though I wouldn't rule out religious teaching being a factor in suicide, especially if you are gay and belong to a very anti-homosexual sect. But for the majority of Christians, impossible standards means no one attains them, it isn't a knock to the ego when everyone else around you is standing in the mud.


Not immoral no, but we are dealing with competing virtues. For me it's not much of a choice. Killing a human for financial reasons is not moral. Should we smother grandpa because you don't want to spend money on food for him?



Are you sure you didn't misunderstand? I'm asking if you are in favour of post-natal abortion. You would really kill a 4 year old because their lives might be bad or because they are unwanted?

"Post-Natal abortion" is.......murder.

How did anybody come up with this euphemism?

I use it for effect, the original idea is credited to two scientists philosophers monsters? (I should point out they were talking about severe developmental abnormalities - but if abortion is justified for any other reason... you might ask why not):

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/0 ... 00411.full

Edit: strike that, they are even considering when the newborn is not disabled:



Emphasis mine.

To be honest I can't get too mad at them, this is where logic and reason alone can lead you if you let it. Morality should exist beyond human reach and if it doesn't we should pretend it does or human hands will mould it and twist it towards the immoral rather quickly.

True, but if you look at Christianity and it's dogma that we all need Jesus to save us because we cannot do it ourselves, the goal is too far which is what we are talking about, we see that they end in praising the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty as somehow being good justice. They also, because of that stupid unreachable goal, end in adoring a genocidal prick of a God.

Goals we set for yourselves, on the religious side should be realistic so as to decrease that type of immoral thinking. The goals set for other areas of life should also be realistic.



Nah. Let him starve is what I recommend as then you can say he did it to himself.


[/quote]

Oops I did. misunderstand. Your question is worthy of it's own thread.

Yes, I think that in some cases some babies and children should be mercy killed. Before you jump all over me, let me qualify my statement.

I am not sure at what age or circumstances for which I would approve mercy killing.For the old who have no quality of life or are just fed up with life, I have no problem granting mercy killing.

Have a look at this link and I hope you remember the movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjjVVNln0wo

If I was that friend, I would do what he did but in a way to not get arrested.

My view progresses down in age to the age of reason.

If the 4 year old you specified is just unwanted then of course, I would not condone mercy killing as that is not what it would be. It would be murder.

If it was able to articulate enough to be put in the category of this man's child, then yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZruMTCnq39k

Regards
DL

That is what religions do with the dictates of their Gods yet there is no more evil force than religions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

Regards
DL

I don't have children.

More to the point, rules from an imaginary deity are worth exactly as much as rules or moral structure given from any set of fairy tales.

Also, you're a mediocre snarker at best and you're not getting any better with practice.

As long as you got my point, I don't care if you think I am snarky or not.

Further, I am nicking and will be even worse for a few days so best to be nice as I return what I get and have a bully personality that I allow to go when I deal with stupid and immoral sheeple who adore a genocidal God.

Further, my wife tells me that I am still a bully but that my presentation is getting better.

Regards
DL

Hey, something we agree on



You speak of "nature" as though it had a mind. Nature, and the mistakenly-labelled "natural selection", doesn't get to decide anything. Decisions are only ever made by conscious agents. "Less fit" means... ? What, in your view? Whenever I think of "fitness" within the realm of biology, I understand it to mean that an individual or species is well adapted for the environmental niche that it just happens to find itself in. That's what it really means in the Darwinian sense, and has little, if anything, to do with physical strength (as is popularly believed).

I equate justice with fairness; what people receive is proportional to what they deserve, which results in a situation where disadvantage and privilege become non-existent. Justice, like energy and momentum, is conserved. That's the simplest way to put it.

[/quote][/quote]

Proofs are only ever mathematical though.



You don't understand faith. Faith isn't a blind acceptance of a belief in the absence of evidence, or (worse) an acceptance of a belief in spite of the evidence, but an admission of one's inability to truly understand the true nature of reality and thus coming to a decision to live one's life based upon a certain premise. For example, the belief in an objective reality that somehow exists "out there" isn't something that can be demonstrated scientifically, has no proof, no evidence, and not even a good philosophical argument in its favour. Even so, most of us accept the notion. Why? Simply because it makes practical sense to do so.

Yikes! To call these depraved lunatics "monsters" is an insult to monsters. This is the inevitable result of believing that people are not sacred, that they are just electro-chemical accidents of nature and don't have souls.