Morally Speaking, What Are Humans?

[QUOTE="KcurtorMas"] It was the right thing to do, because laws emplaced at the time wereused specifically for the oppression and segregation of the Black people. Laws that are immoral in the first place cant hold people accountable for breaking them. Crushmaster

A moral relavist, or a moral relativist? I believe I would consider myself a Moral Relativist, because I believe there is no universal moral code, and that morality differs with circumstance. What may be wrong in one way, is right in a different standpoint. Similar to "One nation's Terrorist is another nation's Freedom Fighter".

[QUOTE="Teenaged"] I think I answered the first. They dont change morality but they insert new factors to consider. Morality is not the only one.

No I dont think everyone has at least commited one hundred evil deeds. Maybe many have, but not everyone. That would be a statement of omniscience based on nothing more than the impression you have of the world. Crushmaster

I havent stolen, I havent killed, I have never lied with the result being someone getting hurt (simply put I havent lied horribly, unless telling your teacher that you forgot the notebook at home but have done the homework, while you havent, is an evil act... :roll: ), I do respect my parents for what they have done for me and I am thankful.

If I am missing some other evil deed please tell me.

EDIT: I disagree with youropinion on the woman and I havent seen you support your claims. Yes her act was immoral and justifiably punishable but she was not evil.

I dont see how you know beyond any doubt that everyone has.

There is no sin, no good, no bad, evil or angelic, just choices.

duncancameron23

just curious as to how you came to such a conclusion.

A moral relavist, or a moral relativist? I believe I would consider myself a Moral Relativist, because I believe there is no universal moral code, and that morality differs with circumstance. What may be wrong in one way, is right in a different standpoint. Similar to "One nation's Terrorist is another nation's Freedom Fighter". KcurtorMas

[QUOTE="KcurtorMas"] A moral relavist, or a moral relativist? I believe I would consider myself a Moral Relativist, because I believe there is no universal moral code, and that morality differs with circumstance. What may be wrong in one way, is right in a different standpoint. Similar to "One nation's Terrorist is another nation's Freedom Fighter". Crushmaster

Your poll assumes that there is an objective morality. Good and Evil are subjective. Between individuals one thing that is horrible to one is the right/good to another. However as a society there are prevelant ideals (i.e. murder is bad) that normally (unfortuanatley not always) ostrecize those who disagree with those ideals. Another unfortunate thing is that some laws in the world readily act against those ideals for the sake of power or profit.

In closing wether a people cannot be labeled as good or evil (if such arbitrary labels can even be applied to an entire species).

I suppose you mean deeds and not include the thoughts in this.

I havent stolen, I havent killed, I have never lied with the result being someone getting hurt (simply put I havent lied horribly, unless telling your teacher that you forgot the notebook at home but have done the homework, while you havent, is an evil act... :roll: ), I do respect my parents for what they have done for me and I am thankful.

If I am missing some other evil deed please tell me.

EDIT: I disagree with youropinion on the woman and I havent seen you support your claims. Yes her act was immoral and justifiably punishable but she was not evil.

I dont see how you know beyond any doubt that everyone has. Teenaged

[QUOTE="KcurtorMas"] A moral relavist, or a moral relativist? I believe I would consider myself a Moral Relativist, because I believe there is no universal moral code, and that morality differs with circumstance. What may be wrong in one way, is right in a different standpoint. Similar to "One nation's Terrorist is another nation's Freedom Fighter". Crushmaster

Touche'. I suppose I contradicted myself there. I agree though. An action is simply an action.

Touche'. I suppose I contradicted myself there. I agree though. An action is simply an action. KcurtorMas

[QUOTE="duncancameron23"]

There is no sin, no good, no bad, evil or angelic, just choices.

J-man45

just curious as to how you came to such a conclusion.

Every choice has a consequence in some eyes it will be the right judgment in others it won't. You can only ever chose the judgment you feel you can live with. Sometimes i drink coke instead of Pepsi. Talk about living on the wild side, whoo yeah! :lol:

[QUOTE="Teenaged"] I suppose you mean deeds and not include the thoughts in this.

I havent stolen, I havent killed, I have never lied with the result being someone getting hurt (simply put I havent lied horribly, unless telling your teacher that you forgot the notebook at home but have done the homework, while you havent, is an evil act... :roll: ), I do respect my parents for what they have done for me and I am thankful.

If I am missing some other evil deed please tell me.

EDIT: I disagree with youropinion on the woman and I havent seen you support your claims. Yes her act was immoral and justifiably punishable but she was not evil.

I dont see how you know beyond any doubt that everyone has. Crushmaster

Your poll assumes that there is an objective morality. Good and Evil are subjective. Between individuals one thing that is horrible to one is the right/good to another. However as a society there are prevelant ideals (i.e. murder is bad) that normally (unfortuanatley not always) ostrecize those who disagree with those ideals. Another unfortunate thing is that some laws in the world readily act against those ideals for the sake of power or profit.

In closing wether a people cannot be labeled as good or evil (if such arbitrary labels can even be applied to an entire species).

gamer_10001

but, by reading God's Word, there is an objective morality.

[QUOTE="KcurtorMas"] A moral relavist, or a moral relativist? I believe I would consider myself a Moral Relativist, because I believe there is no universal moral code, and that morality differs with circumstance. What may be wrong in one way, is right in a different standpoint. Similar to "One nation's Terrorist is another nation's Freedom Fighter". Crushmaster

Yes, an action is just an action (hurrah nihilism), however almost every person on the planet has their own unique conscious which will dictate how they relate to one another and the world around them. Also laws in society (whether they are good or bad laws) will be a larger deterrent from wronging others.

"Right" and "Wrong" will vary from person to person, there is simply no objective answer to what is right and wrong.

(RED) And this is where I disagree without any doubt. The assertion that thoughts always leads to the equivalent act falls under the category of slippery slope fallacies and simply put those are invalid and are based on fears that havent been dealt with concerning ones worries about human behavior. Teenaged

[QUOTE="gamer_10001"]

Your poll assumes that there is an objective morality. Good and Evil are subjective. Between individuals one thing that is horrible to one is the right/good to another. However as a society there are prevelant ideals (i.e. murder is bad) that normally (unfortuanatley not always) ostrecize those who disagree with those ideals. Another unfortunate thing is that some laws in the world readily act against those ideals for the sake of power or profit.

In closing wether a people cannot be labeled as good or evil (if such arbitrary labels can even be applied to an entire species).

J-man45

but, by reading God's Word, there is an objective morality.

I'm afraid I have to get off now. If any wants to respond to me or wants to continue a discussion, please PM me. I should be back on this topic tomorrow.
In Christ,
Crushmaster.

[QUOTE="gamer_10001"]

Your poll assumes that there is an objective morality. Good and Evil are subjective. Between individuals one thing that is horrible to one is the right/good to another. However as a society there are prevelant ideals (i.e. murder is bad) that normally (unfortuanatley not always) ostrecize those who disagree with those ideals. Another unfortunate thing is that some laws in the world readily act against those ideals for the sake of power or profit.

In closing wether a people cannot be labeled as good or evil (if such arbitrary labels can even be applied to an entire species).

J-man45

but, by reading God's Word, there is an objective morality.

From my post I think you can come to the realization that I don't believe in God.

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

[QUOTE="gamer_10001"]

Your poll assumes that there is an objective morality. Good and Evil are subjective. Between individuals one thing that is horrible to one is the right/good to another. However as a society there are prevelant ideals (i.e. murder is bad) that normally (unfortuanatley not always) ostrecize those who disagree with those ideals. Another unfortunate thing is that some laws in the world readily act against those ideals for the sake of power or profit.

In closing wether a people cannot be labeled as good or evil (if such arbitrary labels can even be applied to an entire species).

Teenaged

but, by reading God's Word, there is an objective morality.

All I am saying is that the Bible tells us what is sin and what is not.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"] (RED) And this is where I disagree without any doubt. The assertion that thoughts always leads to the equivalent act falls under the category of slippery slope fallacies and simply put those are invalid and are based on fears that havent been dealt with concerning ones worries about human behavior. Crushmaster

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

[QUOTE="gamer_10001"]

Your poll assumes that there is an objective morality. Good and Evil are subjective. Between individuals one thing that is horrible to one is the right/good to another. However as a society there are prevelant ideals (i.e. murder is bad) that normally (unfortuanatley not always) ostrecize those who disagree with those ideals. Another unfortunate thing is that some laws in the world readily act against those ideals for the sake of power or profit.

In closing wether a people cannot be labeled as good or evil (if such arbitrary labels can even be applied to an entire species).

gamer_10001

but, by reading God's Word, there is an objective morality.

From my post I think you can come to the realization that I don't believe in God.

Have you read the Bible? And I don't just mean listening to a couple chapters of Mathew in Sunday School.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

but, by reading God's Word, there is an objective morality.

J-man45

All I am saying is that the Bible tells us what is sin and what is not.

All I am saying is that the Bible tells us what is sin and what is not.

J-man45

I'd say half and half, but I made a mistake because I morals are just something humans made up to justify their actions. Its not universal and what not. We are still animals no matter how you slice it. We might be more intelligent than some species on the planet at the moment, but where does our intelligence gets us when we kill each other for something so simple like a bag of chips (just using an example here) or someone cheated on them and they have to 'get even'.

If you want to play the religion card, people are always misintrepreting what the 'Great Book' says. Instead of copying and pasting text from a book, why don't you just say what you think it means to your own life and not condeming people for living their lives? People are so SURE where they are going when they die, who they will see, who they will be with, but no one knows. So stop acting like you do. You try to create FACTS out of Opinions. It just doesn't work unless your manipulating on a massive scale.

Humans are pretty much neutral, there are times when we do bad, and times when we do good.

Not to mention Crushmaster that you never answered to my example in my very first post, but instead you just beat around the bush trying to make a point... which was never made..

Get back here! :x

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Thats another assumption: that everyone believes that the Bible is 100% correct as a whole and that the interpretation os very strict.

Teenaged

All I am saying is that the Bible tells us what is sin and what is not.

why would I bring a sociology book into play here? As sociology is the study of people and their social habits, and not what defines good and evil.

[QUOTE="KcurtorMas"] Touche'. I suppose I contradicted myself there. I agree though. An action is simply an action. Crushmaster

I base it on the fact that there is nothing to base morality off of in the first place. What do we look to when deciding such things? Some would look to the Bible, but for others this is not applicable.

Not to mention Crushmaster that you never answered to my example in my very first post, but instead you just beat around the bush trying to make a point... which was never made..

Get back here! :x

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Not to mention Crushmaster that you never answered to my example in my very first post, but instead you just beat around the bush trying to make a point... which was never made..

Get back here! :x

BumFluff122

good. Then that means no one can accuse us of violating the ToU.:lol:

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Not to mention Crushmaster that you never answered to my example in my very first post, but instead you just beat around the bush trying to make a point... which was never made..

Get back here! :x

BumFluff122

That's a good thing, is it not? An actual discussion!!

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

All I am saying is that the Bible tells us what is sin and what is not.

J-man45

why would I bring a sociology book into play here? As sociology is the study of people and their social habits, and not what defines good and evil.

The Bible does not cover all occassion or circumstances, it is not covering all cases 100%, in stead it is just a general guideline, which can only dictate the basics of morality (not always correctly imo but that is irrelevant here), and maybe thats why sometimes people based on the Bible make gross equalisations between the importance/evilness etc of certain acts/notions.

That's a good thing, is it not? An actual discussion!!

KcurtorMas

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]It gives a general guideline. I dont suppose you assume that scripture could ever be written as thoroughly as a scientific book of sociology....

Teenaged

why would I bring a sociology book into play here? As sociology is the study of people and their social habits, and not what defines good and evil.

The Bible does not cover all occassion or circumstances, it is not covering all cases 100%, in stead it is just a general guideline, which can only dictate the basics of morality (not always correctly imo but that is irrelevant here), and maybe thats why sometimes people based on the Bible make gross equalisations between the importance/evilness etc of certain acts/notions.

sin is sin. There are no "certain circumstances."

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Not to mention Crushmaster that you never answered to my example in my very first post, but instead you just beat around the bush trying to make a point... which was never made..

Get back here! :x

BumFluff122

Isnt it a compelling one? :|

[QUOTE="KcurtorMas"]

That's a good thing, is it not? An actual discussion!!

BumFluff122

Ehh...id say its up there for insurance purposes...just in case it gets to that, we'll have no problems.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

why would I bring a sociology book into play here? As sociology is the study of people and their social habits, and not what defines good and evil.

J-man45

The Bible does not cover all occassion or circumstances, it is not covering all cases 100%, in stead it is just a general guideline, which can only dictate the basics of morality (not always correctly imo but that is irrelevant here), and maybe thats why sometimes people based on the Bible make gross equalisations between the importance/evilness etc of certain acts/notions.

sin is sin. There are no "certain circumstances."

Care to provide with something more compelling along with (or better "in stead of") baseless assertions?

The argument is that an evangelist thinks they are right and awaits to see how many agree with them and if someone doesnt, to say "but how can you think of this????". :|

Isnt it a compelling one? :|

Teenaged

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Its just the closest example I could give to something which is very articulated and not just a general guideline. That was the point.

The Bible does not cover all occassion or circumstances, it is not covering all cases 100%, in stead it is just a general guideline, which can only dictate the basics of morality (not always correctly imo but that is irrelevant here), and maybe thats why sometimes people based on the Bible make gross equalisations between the importance/evilness etc of certain acts/notions.

Teenaged

sin is sin. There are no "certain circumstances."

Care to provide with something more compelling along with (or better "in stead of") baseless assertions?

I think I'm confused as to what you want me to make clear to you.:?

[QUOTE="gamer_10001"]

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

but, by reading God's Word, there is an objective morality.

J-man45

From my post I think you can come to the realization that I don't believe in God.

Have you read the Bible? And I don't just mean listening to a couple chapters of Mathew in Sunday School.

No I haven't. Even if I did I would be reading the same way as I read The Odyssey or 1984, and not the way I would read a history text-book.

To believe in what the Bible says, you must believe that the Bible is infallible.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

sin is sin. There are no "certain circumstances."

J-man45

Care to provide with something more compelling along with (or better "in stead of") baseless assertions?

I think I'm confused as to what you want me to make clear to you.:?

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Yes I can repeat stuff to myself but they dont just come true.

Care to provide with something more compelling along with (or better "in stead of") baseless assertions?

Teenaged

I think I'm confused as to what you want me to make clear to you.:?

Try reading the Bible.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

The argument is that an evangelist thinks they are right and awaits to see how many agree with them and if someone doesnt, to say "but how can you think of this????". :|

Isnt it a compelling one? :|

BumFluff122

What I described was not pre-planned. Maybe it happens just because this thread has no reason of existence although it poses an interesting question.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

I think I'm confused as to what you want me to make clear to you.:?

J-man45

Try reading the Bible.

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I dont need a clarification, I understand what you said, I just dont see you supporting your claims with something more compelling than just stating them.

Teenaged

Try reading the Bible.

there are many prophecies that have come true if that's what you want.

Didnt you see how my convo with CM progressed?

What I described was not pre-planned. Maybe it happens just because this thread has no reason of existence although it poses an interesting question.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

Try reading the Bible.

J-man45

there are many prophecies that have come true if that's what you want.

Therefore you assume that if one element is true (the prophecies which you brought up - which of course arent imo but thats irrelevant) then the rest is true/accurate/not outdated/perfect.

This is a bit less absurd claim akin to the claim "well it mentions Jerusalem in it which deffinetely existed so the books is truthfull". >_>

Besides though you are dragging it a bit far. All I asked is for you to provide with some reasoning on your claims about sins. If you cant and just fall back to the Bible, then you dont have anything persuasive to say.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Didnt you see how my convo with CM progressed?

What I described was not pre-planned. Maybe it happens just because this thread has no reason of existence although it poses an interesting question.

BumFluff122

A fine example: a few minutes ago I was redirected to the Bible... >_>