Originally posted by TacDavey
Sir! You wound me! cryI resent the implication that I attempt to vainly present myself as intellectually superior.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. I'm talking about moral values that are present apart from human creation. Not moral values that apply to rocks and snow.
To put it another way. You would say that killing a relative would be bad, and this is "apart from human creation". But surely, you would not hold a Black Widow spider responsible for killing its mate; that is part of its life cycle. But if humans mated like Black Widows, again we would be blameless in the act. So clearly, even the most obvious of morals is only applicable to the particular set of characteristics that makes a human. How could this possibly in any way apply without humans? It is clearly a consequence of humanities existence and peculiar characteristics, that such laws can exist.
Originally posted by TacDavey
But people can still consider them. Even if they are in place, that doesn't mean people have to blindly follow them. Which means people can still perform moral actions.
It seems to me you are envisioning this as some kind of homework assignment. You think "okay, i've questioned it", check it off your to-do list, and then think you have taken the necessary steps to perform a moral action. You miss what the actual point of the assignment was-to scientifically think and gain a greater understanding. (BTW, if you handed this assignment to me, i'd give you an F for not having read the course material).
Originally posted by King Kandy
You missed the point. You are going on about how it's good to "question the bible", but you haven't even read it. So what on Earth kind of questioning are you doing?
What does that matter? I never said I was a perfect Christian. That doesn't mean I was twisting anything, nor blindly following anything.
Originally posted by King Kandy
But no moral laws are present in the absence of humans. I just gave you examples where they would apply to non-humans. You agree they are clearly absurd. How can a moral possibly exist without humans.To put it another way. You would say that killing a relative would be bad, and this is "apart from human creation". But surely, you would not hold a Black Widow spider responsible for killing its mate; that is part of its life cycle. But if humans mated like Black Widows, again we would be blameless in the act. So clearly, even the most obvious of morals is only applicable to the particular set of characteristics that makes a human. How could this possibly in any way apply without humans? It is clearly a consequence of humanities existence and peculiar characteristics, that such laws can exist.
Alright. I'll admit morals don't necessarily apply apart from human's or at least sentient beings. I forgot why this was important.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I think you are missing the point of why I think you should question. You should question because this might lead to improving the rules; just like how in science, questioning theories leads to improving them (or dismissing them for better theories). In your case, you don't think the rules can be improved; they existed before the Earth, and will exist after it, as God-given perfection. Obviously, no mere human can improve on them. So why would I even care about questioning? Nothing good will really come of it.It seems to me you are envisioning this as some kind of homework assignment. You think "okay, i've questioned it", check it off your to-do list, and then think you have taken the necessary steps to perform a moral action. You miss what the actual point of the assignment was-to scientifically think and gain a greater understanding. (BTW, if you handed this assignment to me, i'd give you an F for not having read the course material).
If you think we should question to better understand something, then that can still be done to set moral guides. We can still question and better understand objective things. Unless you want to claim that the only things that we can better understand are things we invent, which is obviously untrue.
Or are you saying it isn't moral if we can't improve it? Because I see no logical defense for that either.
Originally posted by TacDavey
What does that matter? I never said I was a perfect Christian. That doesn't mean I was twisting anything, nor blindly following anything.
This is not some issue of being a perfect Christian, this is a issue where you say you believe the Bible a book you haven't read. You ask me "what does that matter", and I am baffled. How could that possibly not matter? What's the most important thing about following a book? Well, I would say having ****ing read it would be a good start.
You also said that you question the Bible. How on Earth can you question the Bible when you don't even read it? What kind of informed questioning can you possibly do?
Originally posted by TacDavey
Alright. I'll admit morals don't necessarily apply apart from human's or at least sentient beings. I forgot why this was important.
Since hitting the "back a page" button was clearly to much effort, this is what you said to start:
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. Ignoring the question of the Bible's moral codes for a second. I was talking about objective moral values in general. Values that are present outside of human creation. These values can be questioned and pondered just the same as any man made moral value. Correct?
Well, now that you just admitted no such values exist, what is the point of even continuing the conversation? You just admitted there is no such law present apart from humans. So obviously, this is no "universal" law.
Originally posted by TacDavey
If you think we should question to better understand something, then that can still be done to set moral guides. We can still question and better understand objective things. Unless you want to claim that the only things that we can better understand are things we invent, which is obviously untrue.Or are you saying it isn't moral if we can't improve it? Because I see no logical defense for that either.
Originally posted by King Kandy
But you LITERALLY are blindly following it. You haven't read the Bible. Therefore, in believing it, you are going in blind. You believe something before you even know what the content is. How is this NOT "blindly following"?This is not some issue of being a perfect Christian, this is a issue where you say you believe the Bible a book you haven't read. You ask me "what does that matter", and I am baffled. How could that possibly not matter? What's the most important thing about following a book? Well, I would say having ****ing read it would be a good start.
You also said that you question the Bible. How on Earth can you question the Bible when you don't even read it? What kind of informed questioning can you possibly do?
I haven't read it all the way through. That doesn't mean I know absolutely nothing about what it says. THAT is what it means to blindly follow something.
I guess I should have been clearer. I haven't read every verse in every book all the way through. You seem to think I haven't ever picked up a Bible.
Originally posted by King Kandy
facepalm. TacDavey to a "T" right here. Sure, its a three page long thread, and you could easily see what the conversation pertained to... but gosh darn it, not knowing anything about the subject will never stop Tac from chiming in!Since hitting the "back a page" button was clearly to much effort, this is what you said to start:
Calm down, King Kandy, there's no need for hostility. If you couldn't refresh my memory on the relevance of a point a simple "Go back and see for yourself" would have worked.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, now that you just admitted no such values exist, what is the point of even continuing the conversation? You just admitted there is no such law present apart from humans. So obviously, this is no "universal" law.
That's not what I said. I said that the moral codes present don't apply to everything. Like rocks and trees. That doesn't mean they are man made. It simply means they have specific things that they apply to.
Originally posted by King Kandy
God already has gifted us with the superb moral code that cannot be improved upon, so, why would I bother? If God came down and gave me a law that could predict every single form of chemical action flawlessly, obviously, trying to find a "better" law of chemistry is an exercise in futility. I would just follow the equation whenever I wanted to.
But you could study and better understand those chemical reactions, couldn't you?
Again, if your trying to say that the only way something can be moral is if those morals can be improved upon, then you will have to explain the logic behind that. Because I see no logical defense for that stance.
Or if you are trying to say that simply following orders doesn't make you moral, then we agree. The difference is there is no reason that having set moral codes demands that this take place.
You seem to suggest that if there is an objective right or wrong answer to a question, the question cannot be studied or understood. Which is blatantly false.