|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
 Posted - 04/08/2009 : 13:20:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by byhisgrace88
The word fulfill means to bring to completion. When Jesus says "It is finished" on the cross, this means that the the entire old covenant has been fulfilled and completed for us in a way we could not have. The tearing of the veil also represents the end of the old covenant. |
Actually... No.
Here is the full quote I just find back (in Matthew 5:17-18):
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. |
Please note the second verse:
until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law.
So... Repent from your shellfish eating ways before its too late! |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
 |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2009 : 14:28:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by byhisgrace88
I'm not trying to dismiss you or your post, I just don't have the time to go step by step through a video like that. The only thing I will comment on is that his definition of morality is a human definition of morality, therefore invalidating anything said thereafter. He says that we are wrong about theism defining morality because morality is A, B or C. To which I would say again, there is no basis to be able to start on that definition.
|
There is a book I really think you should read.
It's called "The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer, and is a kind of scientific approach to morality and ethics.
But, if you dogmatically insist that the basis for morality is God, end of story, then we will never find common ground.
|
Kantian ethics purports to make things that are self-contradictory immoral, so the irrational becomes the same as the immoral. I just wrote a little explanation as I understand it a few months ago, so I'm just pasting it:
If one is to accept absolute ethics in a rational sense, the categorical imperative in its original formulation, that one should "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" can almost certainly be accepted in order to maintain consistency. The categorical imperative ensures no ethical rule is right at one moment and wrong at the next (with other variables constant), protecting against self-contradictory ethical rules.
The idea that using a person merely as a means to an end is morally permissible would, therefore, have to be universalized, resulting in the idea that it is morally permissible for everyone to use everyone else as a means to an end. However, one must, in taking a rational action (such as using another person), have a free will and be pursuing some hypothetical end. The idea of using another person presupposes there is such a free will to do so, but if everyone is being used for some hypothetical end by another, there is no free will to use a person, meaning it would not even be possible to use another person, so the idea that a person can morally be used as a means to an end is self-defeating, resulting in Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."
This is a form of ethics with a purely rational basis. Kant did suggest the idea of God is necessary from a the "practical point of view," but I am not sure what he meant by "practical." Kant is quite complicated and I do not purport to entirely understand him, but I do not see why the concept of God is necessary for the basic idea above and I do think it is a valid basis for an ethical system if we assume the existence of free will.
The system would make many things wrong that we consider wrong (i.e. theft is immoral because theft requires the concept of property, but if theft were universalized, it would negate the concept of property, so universalizing theft negates the concept of property, which makes theft impossible.)
Utilitarianism is almost the opposite of this, placing the happiness or unhappiness resulting from an action as the measure of its wrongness or rightness. I think the existence of God is unnecessary to the equation. The validity of its basis (that happiness created is the measure of morality), however, may be a bit more easily challenged. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2009 : 07:40:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
Well, for the hell of it, I figured I'd post a few bible verses. Remember when Javier said that
| Yes, God doing whatever he wants is moral. |
Look at | Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. |
That verse pretty much says that the standards that "god" has set for us is the same standards that he sets for himself. Otherwise, that verse, even in context of the other verses around it, make no sense.
That refuts Javier's assertion that god doing just whatever he wants is moral, or that god has a different set of standards than what he sets out for us.
Typical fundy, ignorant of his own holy book.
|
Well, I posted that over on Trish's blog as I said I would, since she has the same viewpoint, and this is her response.
The other commentators have the same reaction as I did: WTF?? |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 04/09/2009 07:43:18 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2009 : 08:14:00 [Permalink]
|
Well; she just changed the meaning of morality as to mean 'What God does or want'. So, by definition, everything God does or want is moral.
Which is as relativistic a moral as can be, a thing they often accuse atheist of. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2009 : 23:38:35 [Permalink]
|
Well, here's another example of religious anti-humanist views
Lest people think that people like Javier and Cheung are in the minority...Vox Day is a popular right-wing blogger.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2009 : 03:30:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zebra
Me, not having an absolute sense of morality emanating directly from God to me, think that polygamy isn't wrong, if practiced among consenting adults with consideration & fairness for all, but recognize that considering an arrangement of more than 2 people to be "marriage" would require a societal reconsideration of the practical considerations around marriage: what rights, what responsibilities, what assumed duration? The members of such a group relationship might need to be able to review & change their relationship(s) periodically without the requirement for costly legal action to rearrange & regroup.
But that's just me, an immoral (amoral?) atheist who had to consider for myself what I thought about polygamy, and why. |
My caution comes from a practical standpoint. I believe that whatever serious problems may exist in a monogamous relationship are multiplied in any group arrangement. The practice of polygamy, polyandry, or any other kind of polyamory faces incredible centrifugal forces, especially without the help of a pervasive tradition such as the FLDS or Muslims.
But maybe practice makes perfect?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/14/2009 03:33:51 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2009 : 03:36:25 [Permalink]
|
Scary, that guy. Pure WingNutDaily scary.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
From Javier, the xian concept of "morality"
