The moral law

[GreatestIam]

You are a subversive. That’s the evil you do.

"Let's see if we can get a couple of posts in before you start insulting and I put you back on ignore."

You failed. Pathetic piece of human garbage.

Back on ignore, given your stupidity.

Regards
DL

 

[ding]

Once you started demanding I number crunch the Gods, Ding, you killed it.

Dear, you were the one who brought up the multiple gods argument when you yourself don’t believe in multiple gods. Thus proving the games you play.

Dearest. What multiple Gods argument did I bring up?

And how do you know I don't believe in them? Although acknowledge would be a more appropriate verb. Even God himself went that far.

How many?

There's a whole committee of them 'up there'.

 

[ding]

I was wondering if a moral law applied to black widow spiders and preying mantis.

The appalling and callous behaviour they indulge in.

Ask your Rabbi.

 

[ding]

That belief is founded upon a belief in natural law. Natural law are laws from Nature’s God.

That isn't what you said- like I said learn to read, especially what you type.

What you are describing is the natural law. And the natural law is given to us by the Creator for no other reason than we are his creatures with the condition that we fulfill our duties to the creator.

 

[Mindful]

Once you started demanding I number crunch the Gods, Ding, you killed it.

Dear, you were the one who brought up the multiple gods argument when you yourself don’t believe in multiple gods. Thus proving the games you play.

Dearest. What multiple Gods argument did I bring up?

And how do you know I don't believe in them? Although acknowledge would be a more appropriate verb. Even God himself went that far.

How many?

There's a whole committee of them 'up there'.

That was from Jason and the Argonauts.

 

[Mindful]

I was wondering if a moral law applied to black widow spiders and preying mantis.

The appalling and callous behaviour they indulge in.

Ask your Rabbi.

Difficult. He's in The Levant.

 

[james bond]

Should assembly be forbidden? Or scorned?

No assembly required-

re·quired
/rəˈkwī(ə)rd/

Learn to pronounce

adjective
adjective: required
officially compulsory, or otherwise considered essential; indispensable.

Surely, something must've brought people together. Maybe they wanted to get to point B from point A and it was better done together.

One ignorant poster mentioned one group of people who gathered power and wealth and were more powerful and better off than others. This was his example of no morals. He got that part right, but named the wrong peoples. He doesn't know history of who the first empire builders were. Typical atheist or agnostic schmuck. There were those who wanted to exploit people not like them and make them their slaves and do things for them cheaply or else. These exploited people wanted to escape.

 

[Meriweather]

Surely, something must've brought people together. Maybe they wanted to get to point B from point A and it was better done together.

It may have been more simple than that. My grandparents could remember the days before TV--and lived in an area and a time--where radios were not all that common, either. After dinner, people would go for a walk, or sit out on their front porch, and walkers and sitters would gather together on a porch and talk about news and daily events. My grandmother remembers her mother (who lived in a tar-paper shack out on the prairie) tell of stories of going out each day and looking every direction so she would not miss a person passing by and an opportunity for a visit.

 

[Hollie]

Should assembly be forbidden? Or scorned?

No assembly required-

re·quired
/rəˈkwī(ə)rd/

Learn to pronounce

adjective
adjective: required
officially compulsory, or otherwise considered essential; indispensable.

Surely, something must've brought people together. Maybe they wanted to get to point B from point A and it was better done together.

One ignorant poster mentioned one group of people who gathered power and wealth and were more powerful and better off than others. This was his example of no morals. He got that part right, but named the wrong peoples. He doesn't know history of who the first empire builders were. Typical atheist or agnostic schmuck. There were those who wanted to exploit people not like them and make them their slaves and do things for them cheaply or else. These exploited people wanted to escape.

"...one group of people who gathered power and wealth and were more powerful and better off than others."

You're describing the clergy. Quite an admission on your part.

 

[Mindful]

Morality, Nietzsche wrote:

“What if a regressive trait lurked in “the good man,” likewise a danger, an enticement, a poison, a narcotic, so that the present lived at the expense of the future? Perhaps in more comfort and less danger, but also in a smaller-minded, meaner manner? … So that morality itself were to blame if man never attained the highest power and splendor possible for the type man? So that morality itself was the danger of dangers?” (On the Genealogy of Morality)

Most people do not question why things are considered morally good or evil, rather uncritically, and largely unconsciously, they adopt the “value judgments of good and evil” dominant within their society.

Nietzsche and Morality: The Higher Man and The Herd

 

[ding]

I believe you and I have a different understanding of what successful means. But putting that aside, do you believe that comparing how one nation treats other nations is the correct way of looking at things?

let’s use the USSR as an example. They did not treat their own people with virtue. Do you define them as being successful?

Comparing how one nation treats other nations is a very problematic of looking at things. Is the US virtuous? Did the US topple foreign governments and create real trouble (e.g., Iran)?

The USSR did not treat their own people with virtue and was not successful. Modern China did not treat their own people with virtue and is successful.

Actually it’s not. It’s no different than personal relationships.

people prefer to associate with people of good will. It’s no different for nations.

Sorry but that is not how the world works. The US was no fan of the USSR but we provided them plenty of aid when they were fighting Nazis. We don't look for virtue in nations, only shared self-interest.

And doesn’t prove anything.

Got an example that does prove something?

Your own life.

 

[ding]

so you don’t have personal relationships that are based on each party being virtuous?

I'm not sure I have any such relationships. Mine are based on self interest: my family brings me feelings of pride and joy, my friends do things with me that I enjoy, my employer pays me to do stuff.

So you seek out people who are devoid of virtue? You know, people who behave dishonesty, cruelly, etc.

I've never met anyone completely devoid of virtue or anyone who is 100% dishonest or cruel. I only know human beings, who are you talking about?

Right but that’s not the question. The question is which one leads to peace and harmony and which one leads to chaos and disorder.

You keep changing the goal posts. Are you talking about nations or individuals? If nations, please provide some examples of what you're trying to say.

The same principles that apply to individuals also applies to nations.

 

[ding]

The question is which one leads to peace and harmony and which one leads to chaos and disorder.

Respect the rights of others, which I tried, unsuccessfully, to point out to you but your intentional obtuseness refused to accept it. Remember?

Not sure of what you are referring to here.

all I did was point out that you described natural law.

 

[james bond]

Should assembly be forbidden? Or scorned?

No assembly required-

re·quired
/rəˈkwī(ə)rd/

Learn to pronounce

adjective
adjective: required
officially compulsory, or otherwise considered essential; indispensable.

Surely, something must've brought people together. Maybe they wanted to get to point B from point A and it was better done together.

One ignorant poster mentioned one group of people who gathered power and wealth and were more powerful and better off than others. This was his example of no morals. He got that part right, but named the wrong peoples. He doesn't know history of who the first empire builders were. Typical atheist or agnostic schmuck. There were those who wanted to exploit people not like them and make them their slaves and do things for them cheaply or else. These exploited people wanted to escape.

"...one group of people who gathered power and wealth and were more powerful and better off than others."

You're describing the clergy. Quite an admission on your part.

Oh my goodness. I wasn't referring to you as the schmuck, but you are revealing your ignorance as an atheist. Just where do you get your ancient history? There was an area where the land was fertile and thus their empire arose. There is some question as to who the first one was, but in the Bible it is explained. What was the first form of government of the fallen world?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I addressed this in the OP.

And I addressed it in my post. Uh...good for us.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That belief is founded upon a belief in natural law. Natural law are laws from Nature’s God.

That isn't what you said- like I said learn to read, especially what you type.

So , are you guys enjoying the dithering ding parade? Let me save you some time:

What you think ding said is never what ding said, especially when he obviously contradicts himself.

And, should you ever encounter the ironic misfortune of trapping him in one of his endless lines of nebulous, magical bullshit, you will be tortured by 20 pages of 3 word, deflecting posts.

 

[Meriweather]

What you think ding said is never what ding said

Perhaps listen more carefully. I appreciate Ding's insights and often follow his conversations. I have no problems comprehending his perspectives or his presentations.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Perhaps listen more carefully.

Perhaps plug your ears and read ding's posts more carefully.

And it's no mystery you appreciate his behavior and tactics, as you share them.

 

[james bond]

Surely, something must've brought people together. Maybe they wanted to get to point B from point A and it was better done together.

It may have been more simple than that. My grandparents could remember the days before TV--and lived in an area and a time--where radios were not all that common, either. After dinner, people would go for a walk, or sit out on their front porch, and walkers and sitters would gather together on a porch and talk about news and daily events. My grandmother remembers her mother (who lived in a tar-paper shack out on the prairie) tell of stories of going out each day and looking every direction so she would not miss a person passing by and an opportunity for a visit.

Sounds like more of a small town atmosphere where people knew each other. The community or neighborhood I live in now is a bit like that. I grew up in an urban center, so it wasn't like that while growing up.

Anyway, I think what brings people together are the Bible and the church. There are other churches that practice differently, but there is the one common ground of meeting on Sundays and doing other activities during the week. That way one isn't as isolated so much at work and at home.

That's one of the reasons why we have moral law in the US; It's based on the Ten Commandments. Oh, we can't keep them but it's something to shoot for. I think it reminds us that we are sinful creatures and that none of us are without sin. Thus, we end up going to church so we are not tempted into greater sin. I'm not sure what the atheists do since they are just isolated and by themselves. I don't think they have any morals and ethics except for politics. I think we had that during the pre-flood days, but it was more crazier as divine beings walked among those that were human. I think what happened was the innocent weren't safe anymore as the ones without morals were preying upon them. Maybe violence was the norm. I dunno, but it's hard to imagine.

Today, we live under the law of Moses or actually what sprang out of it -- the law of Jesus, but you notice it is changing for the worse. Things are becoming more and more contrary to what the Bible states.

What I am most familiar with, in terms of other religions, are what the Buddhists teach and that is karma is what ends up judging one's performance in life. They have the five precepts of:

"On the most basic level, there are five moral standards by which anyone who decides to take refuge in the Buddha must follow. Essentially these are the five moral laws of Buddhism. The first is to refrain from killing, which extends to food, making many Buddhists vegetarians. The next two are to refrain from stealing and any sort of sexual misconduct. The final two are refraining from false speech, which includes not only lies but also harmful words, and from the use of substances which alter the mind."

Buddhist Morals and Guidelines | Synonym

ETA: I haven't really heard about refraining from killing extending to food, but maybe some churches practice it.

 

[ding]

I addressed this in the OP.

And I addressed it in my post. Uh...good for us.

Actually you didn’t.