Private Morality

[JoeB131]

Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton should be in the same Jail cell...

Yes, we should totally put people in jail on the say-so of self-aggrandizers who've changed their stories.

 

[JoeB131]

Like i said before this miserable idiot is a walking, talking contradiction. He hates the rich unless they work for the government, then they are somehow virtuous in his warped mind. He defends and sides with muslum nutjobs while claiming Christians and Jews condone stoning. Joey show me were today's Christians and Jews are stoning people. it seems you failed to comprehend my previous posts. Joey the liberal is a totalitarian, leftist, nutjob which is why he defends radical muslims who also are totalitarians

I don't defend Muslims. I just don't think we should keep pissing them off by protecting the Zionists.

 

[JoeB131]

Let me sniff this out. Yep. That smells like a red herring, besides, Cosby is a lifelong Democrat and liberal. Back to the topic of the OP please.

Really? Frankly, i don't see a lot of liberals going out there and telling welfare moms it's their own damned fault.

 

[JoeB131]

"... we are the ONLY country that doesn't have universal health care,..."

This nation has had universal healthcare since 1986, you dope.

No, we don't. I mean, what kind of fucking retard are you, anyway?

 

[JoeB131]

Let's cut right to the chase, friend.

Does your understanding of the term "morality" include killing those who don't agree with your version of religion?

Christians have killed more "infidels" than Muslims have killed "kafir"

 

[Justin Davis]

Another atheist denying the only absolute ground for a universal morality as he spouts moral absolutes. I wonder why no one really escapes the necessity of moral absolutes. Could it be that some are just deluding themselves? Looks that way. Some people just aren't good people, but evil. Looks that way.

Uh, buddy, I put a simple question to you guys. If you guys offer Sodom as a morality tale, then gay sex is bad, but incest and offering your daughter up for gang rape are good.

You seem to have gotten the wrong idea about Lot's failures. How did that happen?

 

[JoeB131]

You seem to have gotten the wrong idea about Lot's failures. How did that happen?

Well, you might be on to something here. You see, when I went to Catholic School, they left out the parts about Lot offering up his daughters for Gang Rape and Having Drunken Sex with them out of the story.

Nope, nope. The important part they wanted us to know what that 1) God killed all them people for being queers (even though all the nuns were lesbians and all the priests were gay) and 2) Mrs. Lot got turned into a pillar of Salt because she didn't listen to God's vaguely worded warning not to look back at everything she had ever known being destroyed.

Then I got to read the actual bible verse, including the fun part at the end where Lot's daughters got him so flat on his ass drunk he had sex with them. TWICE!!!

well, after reading that for myself, I actually got the right idea.

That the Bible was written by Goat-herding, bronze age savages and their barbaric stupidity should not be listened to by anyone.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Answer the questions, coward.

"Sixteen women have publicly stated that Cosby, now 77, sexually assaulted them, with 12 saying he drugged them first and another saying he tried to drug her."

1. Would you give him a standing ovation?


2. In your estimation, is rape simply ignored as part of his 'private life'?

Answer the two questions.
Do it now!

I did.

Did you have anything else to add to the conversation.

Answer the questions, coward....it only takes two word.

"Sixteen women have publicly stated that Cosby, now 77, sexually assaulted them, with 12 saying he drugged them first and another saying he tried to drug her."

1. Would you give him a standing ovation?


2. In your estimation, is rape simply ignored as part of his 'private life'?

Answer the two questions.
Do it now!

 

[Steven_R]

The biggest issue I have with this concept of Bible-based morality is that there isn't any philosophical basis for the Bible-based morality. It's all commandments from on high with the "...or else" attached at the end. Don't steal...or else. Don't blaspheme...or else. Don't wear poly-cotton blends...or else. There's no discussion of the basis for rights, no discussion of why we shouldn't lie, steal, or kill, no discussion of why it's wrong for me to kill my neighbor but perfectly okay for the Tribe of Israel to kill the shit out of their neighbors. It's morality by proclamation from an outside power and even then only because of threats. Say what you will about Marx and Hegel, but at least their particular philosophic bases go a bitt deeper than "because God said so."

" There's no discussion of the basis for rights, no discussion of why we shouldn't lie, steal, or kill, no discussion of why it's wrong for me to kill my neighbor but perfectly okay for the Tribe of Israel to kill the shit out of their neighbors."

As you show in this, and other posts....you are totally clueless.

Now take notes.


1. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
Mamet, “Secret Knowledge”



2. If there is no God, there is no good or evil; they are still left to our reason, our subjective opinion and our cultural experience.
. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.


3. Why? Because there is no force behind reason.
Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

a. Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.
Dennis Prager

You're filtering the Bible through the lenses of other people to prove the Bible says what it doesn't actually say. All the Bible says is don't do certain things or else God will fucking stomp you. There's no rationale for the whys behind the ban on theft or lust or eating shellfish out of season or why men with vision problems can't enter the Temple. There's just a blanket "don't." At least the philosophers you hate can explain why they hold the positions they do, even if they are logically twisted. And that's before we even get into the Bible's sheer litany of acceptable cruelty that is somehow morally acceptable, even when it harms someone.

As far as this Cosby thing goes, I'll be the first to stone him for rape AFTER a conviction. Until then it's a mere accusation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The biggest issue I have with this concept of Bible-based morality is that there isn't any philosophical basis for the Bible-based morality. It's all commandments from on high with the "...or else" attached at the end. Don't steal...or else. Don't blaspheme...or else. Don't wear poly-cotton blends...or else. There's no discussion of the basis for rights, no discussion of why we shouldn't lie, steal, or kill, no discussion of why it's wrong for me to kill my neighbor but perfectly okay for the Tribe of Israel to kill the shit out of their neighbors. It's morality by proclamation from an outside power and even then only because of threats. Say what you will about Marx and Hegel, but at least their particular philosophic bases go a bitt deeper than "because God said so."

" There's no discussion of the basis for rights, no discussion of why we shouldn't lie, steal, or kill, no discussion of why it's wrong for me to kill my neighbor but perfectly okay for the Tribe of Israel to kill the shit out of their neighbors."

As you show in this, and other posts....you are totally clueless.

Now take notes.


1. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
Mamet, “Secret Knowledge”



2. If there is no God, there is no good or evil; they are still left to our reason, our subjective opinion and our cultural experience.
. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.


3. Why? Because there is no force behind reason.
Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

a. Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.
Dennis Prager

You're filtering the Bible through the lenses of other people to prove the Bible says what it doesn't actually say. All the Bible says is don't do certain things or else God will fucking stomp you. There's no rationale for the whys behind the ban on theft or lust or eating shellfish out of season or why men with vision problems can't enter the Temple. There's just a blanket "don't." At least the philosophers you hate can explain why they hold the positions they do, even if they are logically twisted. And that's before we even get into the Bible's sheer litany of acceptable cruelty that is somehow morally acceptable, even when it harms someone.

As far as this Cosby thing goes, I'll be the first to stone him for rape AFTER a conviction. Until then it's a mere accusation.

Have you ever had the opportunity to peruse the ten commandments?

 

[Steven_R]

Where in the Bible is any discussion of the inherent rights of man? Where does it describe why theft is wrong, but going to war to seize territory is right and why the difference? What part of the Bible explains why liberty is a right, but why slavery is justified? Or why God killing David and Bathsheba's son for David's sin is really not all that bad?

 

[Justin Davis]

When neither believers and non- can prove an absolute existence or not of God, then the talk of moral absolutes becomes interesting.

But you forgot Rawlings wrapped that up real nice on the syllogism thread, so it looks like you're wrong again.

Rawlings, as does keys, loves to babble and thinks a syllogism can prove a moral absolute of God. It can't. Any more than an atheist can prove God does not exist.

The classical laws of thought cannot be contravened, and these laws show that God's existence must be. You want to argue this axiom isn't true outside the logic of our minds, go ahead. No one's stopping you. But obviously because you can't use any other logic than human logic all you can do is say that our logic isn't absolute. So you're stuck with an irrational argument that contradicts itself any way you try to deny the fact of the axiom. Rawlings has got the relativists and the atheists pulling their hair out on two threads. All they can do his personally attack him. Now they're saying he's an antisocial personality because he just laughs at them and won’t "work with them on their ideas." It's hilarious.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The classical laws of thought certainly can be contravened and thus demonstrate that God's existence cannot be proved absolutely.

The far right social con moralists and the militant atheists cannot create new definitions and terms and narratives. They whinge and cringe when rightfully corrected, like Justin Davis above.

 

[Justin Davis]

You seem to have gotten the wrong idea about Lot's failures. How did that happen?

Well, you might be on to something here. You see, when I went to Catholic School, they left out the parts about Lot offering up his daughters for Gang Rape and Having Drunken Sex with them out of the story.

Nope, nope. The important part they wanted us to know what that 1) God killed all them people for being queers (even though all the nuns were lesbians and all the priests were gay) and 2) Mrs. Lot got turned into a pillar of Salt because she didn't listen to God's vaguely worded warning not to look back at everything she had ever known being destroyed.

Then I got to read the actual bible verse, including the fun part at the end where Lot's daughters got him so flat on his ass drunk he had sex with them. TWICE!!!

well, after reading that for myself, I actually got the right idea.

That the Bible was written by Goat-herding, bronze age savages and their barbaric stupidity should not be listened to by anyone.

No. I said you obviously took away the wrong idea about Lot's moral failings. You seem to be under the impression that the Bible portrays his failings as something to be admired when Abraham warned him not to sully himself with those disgusting pagans in the first place. At the same time you talk about absolute moral failings while you say there are no absolutes. You're hysterical. Do you hear yourself? Obviously not. You relativists are really crazy.

 

[Justin Davis]

The classical laws of thought certainly can be contravened and thus demonstrate that God's existence cannot be proved absolutely.

The far right social con moralists and the militant atheists cannot create new definitions and terms and narratives. They whinge and cringe when rightfully corrected, like Justin Davis above.

So stop bragging about it and contravene them, tough guy.

 

[Muslim75]

Let's cut right to the chase, friend.

Does your understanding of the term "morality" include killing those who don't agree with your version of religion?

I speak as a Muslim. Early Muslims did wage war in the name of God. But it was a heavenly order. Indeed, everyone who knows a little about Islam know about the holiness and the heavenliness of Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family) and the early generations of Muslims (the Companions, may God be well pleased with them, and the Successors, may God have mercy on them). So these wars were made because of heavenly orders. God Almighty wanted to teach some specific wisdom to mankind. It was from the 7th century to the 19th century. Then heavenly orders asked to stop these wars so that today these wars are not right. But most Muslims don't know about the authentic Islamic creed.
.

The classical laws of thought certainly can be contravened and thus demonstrate that God's existence cannot be proved absolutely.

The far right social con moralists and the militant atheists cannot create new definitions and terms and narratives. They whinge and cringe when rightfully corrected, like Justin Davis above.

I speak as a Muslim. God is obvious and His greatness is obvious. Not only that but the existence of an Almighty God is proven by the rain that comes from the sky and the vast pathways above you in the sky, among others.

No. I said you obviously took away the wrong idea about Lot's moral failings. You seem to be under the impression that the Bible portrays his failings as something to be admired when Abraham warned him not to sully himself with those disgusting pagans in the first place. At the same time you talk about absolute moral failings while you say there are no absolutes. You're hysterical. Do you hear yourself? Obviously not. You relativists are really crazy.

I speak as a Muslim. You can not accept anything written in the Bible. The truth as we know it in Islam is that angels came to visit Lot, saying we will destroy these people. Then these people came noticing he had guests, and they wanted to have them. So he pleaded for a last time that they change and repent. They said it is not your daughters we need, you know what we need. Then they were destroyed. Lot was a most honored prophet, out of the 124 000 prophets, peace on them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Muslim75, I am glad your religion brings you peace.

But your testimony as is PC's or others remains only as evidence for yourself about God's truth

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's cut right to the chase, friend.

Does your understanding of the term "morality" include killing those who don't agree with your version of religion?

I speak as a Muslim. Early Muslims did wage war in the name of God. But it was a heavenly order. Indeed, everyone who knows a little about Islam know about the holiness and the heavenliness of Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family) and the early generations of Muslims (the Companions, may God be well pleased with them, and the Successors, may God have mercy on them). So these wars were made because of heavenly orders. God Almighty wanted to teach some specific wisdom to mankind. It was from the 7th century to the 19th century. Then heavenly orders asked to stop these wars so that today these wars are not right. But most Muslims don't know about the authentic Islamic creed.
.

The classical laws of thought certainly can be contravened and thus demonstrate that God's existence cannot be proved absolutely.

The far right social con moralists and the militant atheists cannot create new definitions and terms and narratives. They whinge and cringe when rightfully corrected, like Justin Davis above.

I speak as a Muslim. God is obvious and His greatness is obvious. Not only that but the existence of an Almighty God is proven by the rain that comes from the sky and the vast pathways above you in the sky, among others.

No. I said you obviously took away the wrong idea about Lot's moral failings. You seem to be under the impression that the Bible portrays his failings as something to be admired when Abraham warned him not to sully himself with those disgusting pagans in the first place. At the same time you talk about absolute moral failings while you say there are no absolutes. You're hysterical. Do you hear yourself? Obviously not. You relativists are really crazy.

I speak as a Muslim. You can not accept anything written in the Bible. The truth as we know it in Islam is that angels came to visit Lot, saying we will destroy these people. Then these people came noticing he had guests, and they wanted to have them. So he pleaded for a last time that they change and repent. They said it is not your daughters we need, you know what we need. Then they were destroyed. Lot was a most honored prophet, out of the 124 000 prophets, peace on them.

"...most Muslims don't know about the authentic Islamic creed."

Does your understanding of the term "morality" include killing those who don't agree with your version of religion?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Christian history is replete with killing in the Name of God, but not so much lately.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Christian history is replete with killing in the Name of God, but not so much lately.

"....but not so much lately."

As is the case of intelligent posts for you.