Tonight is Passover- Pesach Sameach

[ding]

You don't think?

Wow. Who knew?

You are super butt hurt.

What's a butt? A receptacle for storing rain water?

Ask a priest.

You're bad.

That’s when I’m my best.

In its simplest form the Bible tells us that God created existence, man is a product of that creation, that everything that was created is good and that man should go forth and be fruitful. That we are to do as he has done which is to create. We are happiest when we are using our talents to create. There is no better way to show one's appreciation for what he was given than by using it. But the Bible also tells us that man is a rebel. That man is at war with God. People forget that part. Man is at war with God because man worships created things instead of the creator.

 

[Mindful]

You are super butt hurt.

What's a butt? A receptacle for storing rain water?

Ask a priest.

You're bad.

That’s when I’m my best.

The only false Gods that exist are pride, greed, lust, gluttony, etc. Man has a choice in worshipping created things or the creator. Created things are the only false gods that exist. Man is free to pursue fame, fortune and power, but none of these things will satisfy him because he was made for more. Man is only truly happy when he worships the creator.

Not much point in him coming to the USMB den of iniquity then.

 

[ding]

You don't think?

Wow. Who knew?

You are super butt hurt.

What's a butt? A receptacle for storing rain water?

Ask a priest.

You're bad.

That’s when I’m my best.

Logically there are not multiple deities that exist. There is only one. Whose nature is beyond our comprehension. Who is capable of creating all of existence in its entirety of complexity. Pure consciousness with no limitations of energy or matter because it is beyond energy and matter. This intelligence cannot be bound or limited by a book that was written filtered through men.

 

[Mindful]

BTW, Ding; did you know Steven Fry is Jewish?

 

[Indeependent]

No laws result in chaos.
Every culture has rules of behavior.

 

[ding]

No laws result in chaos.
Every culture has rules of behavior.

But they have never been diametrically opposed. Sure, some cultures allow one wife, some more, but none have said you can take any woman you want. We have never had a culture which prized cowardice or murder or thievery.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ding]

BTW, Ding; did you know Steven Fry is Jewish?

And that is important to me why?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Jews were never in Egypt except to go there to work and for food, you were never slaves, no exodus.

I see the crazy lady is running her mouth again,,,

Well its true.

Were you there, Sheri?

 

[Mindful]

BTW, Ding; did you know Steven Fry is Jewish?

And that is important to me why?

Because you posted him in the FZ, according to my alert.

But there's no need to dramatise the matter by calling it "important".

 

[Indeependent]

No laws result in chaos.
Every culture has rules of behavior.

But they have never been diametrically opposed. Sure, some cultures allow one wife, some more, but none have said you can take any woman you want. We have never had a culture which prized cowardice or murder or thievery.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

I guess you missed the Roman Empire.
There are many countries today that advocate “Anything Goes”.

 

[ding]

BTW, Ding; did you know Steven Fry is Jewish?

And that is important to me why?

Because you posted him in the FZ, according to my alert.

But there's no need to dramatise the matter by calling it "important".

That would be news to me.

 

[ding]

No laws result in chaos.
Every culture has rules of behavior.

But they have never been diametrically opposed. Sure, some cultures allow one wife, some more, but none have said you can take any woman you want. We have never had a culture which prized cowardice or murder or thievery.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

I guess you missed the Roman Empire.
There are many countries today that advocate “Anything Goes”.

It doesn't matter what man says. Standards exist independent of man.

 

[Indeependent]

No laws result in chaos.
Every culture has rules of behavior.

But they have never been diametrically opposed. Sure, some cultures allow one wife, some more, but none have said you can take any woman you want. We have never had a culture which prized cowardice or murder or thievery.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

I guess you missed the Roman Empire.
There are many countries today that advocate “Anything Goes”.

It doesn't matter what man says. Standards exist independent of man.

Sub-standards also exist.

 

[Mindful]

I'm getting tired of all this, Ding, and I never take naps.

It's getting tedious.

 

[ding]

No laws result in chaos.
Every culture has rules of behavior.

But they have never been diametrically opposed. Sure, some cultures allow one wife, some more, but none have said you can take any woman you want. We have never had a culture which prized cowardice or murder or thievery.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

I guess you missed the Roman Empire.
There are many countries today that advocate “Anything Goes”.

It doesn't matter what man says. Standards exist independent of man.

Sub-standards also exist.

So what? When we accept something which is sub standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.

 

[ding]

How is it that some Jews can't believe that failed behaviors naturally lead to failure and successful behaviors naturally lead to success?

Especially when their Holy texts tells them it does.

 

[ding]

I guess you missed the Roman Empire.
There are many countries today that advocate “Anything Goes”.

Sub-standards also exist.

Of course I could have responded with the other reason which is... The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

 

[irosie91]

To be perfectly honest I have no idea what has made you people all upset. I don't think you do either.

You don't think?

Wow. Who knew?

MIND he thinks too much

 

[irosie91]

How is it that some Jews can't believe that failed behaviors naturally lead to failure and successful behaviors naturally lead to success?

Especially when their Holy texts tells them it does.

who INFORMED you as to what "JEWS BELIEVE" The same
sweet little old lady that secretly put jelly beans into your easter
basket. Can you be more SPECIFIC as to what the little old lady
determined was "failed jewish behavior. ----like when and what?

 

[ding]

How is it that some Jews can't believe that failed behaviors naturally lead to failure and successful behaviors naturally lead to success?

Especially when their Holy texts tells them it does.

who INFORMED you as to what "JEWS BELIEVE" The same
sweet little old lady that secretly put jelly beans into your easter
basket. Can you be more SPECIFIC as to what the little old lady
determined was "failed jewish behavior. ----like when and what?

Feel free to discuss what Jews believe. It would be a first time for you.