 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: May 16th, 2003 09:06 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
"Christian Morals"
|
First I would like to say the main view of the bible is not morals, but Christ, and that as Christians we are no longer held responsible for our sins, this does not mean we shouldn't do good things but that we don't have to.
"It is immoral to tell people or imply that they are inherently a sinner. If we want people to do good they must know that they are not inherently bad, that they are capable of anything they put their minds to."
Think about it. Kids left to themselves get into trouble. As teenagers we rebel at any chance we get. As young adults, we can't wait to get away from our parents and be on our own to do what we want, which is usually wrong. People are not good, they can do good, but we are all naturally evil. If salvations were dependant on our good works, we would be screwed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: June 1st, 2003 09:26 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
I'm not anonymous, i'm samantha o.O---comment
|
Apart from being well dodgy, this part is an immoral ending to what started out as a promising plot. The mother of the child allowed all the children to be killed rather than sacrifice her own. Although typical of human nature, the more moral, braver and altruistic action would have been to stop the slaughter!
I disagree with this statement. Children are not things, which we should consider ourselves to OWN. Something we own, we can do whatever we want to, use however we wish. It isn't her right to sacrifice someone else, it would be the childs right to kill himself in order to save others. A decision he couldn't make, and which should not have been made for him. She wasn't responsible for the deaths of those children, the king was.
Besides,
Altruism:: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
No matter how you slice it, her decision would be selfish, AND it would benefit others. It would only have helped her ego to know what a great sacrifice she would be making for others, and that would be her only motivation... either that or to avoid any guilty feelings, which would only come if she considered her child to be something she OWNED (which is immoral). By keeping her child, she is being selfish, because the decision is based on her own feelings towards the kid-YET, it is still benefitting someone else.
Neither option is altruistic if you ask me, and your option isnt very moral in a sense. It would encourage people to look at others as inanimate objects, which in turn would discourage compassion and similar traits. The option isn't moral-its logical.. there's often a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: December 25th, 2006 03:42 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: I'm not anonymous, i'm samantha o.O---comment
|
When one presents any argument discussing morality, they must first make a decision on what morality is derived from, and what makes an action moral or immoral. Judged solely from a teleological, or utilitarian, perspective if Mary would have sacrificed her son in order to stop the slaughter, then she would have made the morally correct decision because by doing so she would have increased the net happiness-or done something from the greater good.
If one is to however, judge the action from a deontological perspective (such as Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative) then they would conclude that Mary was morally incorrect. One of Kant's maxim's is to treat every human as an end, and not just the means to an end. Judging from that, it is therefore wrong to kill the baby Jesus in order to save other lives, because by killing her son she would treat him as a means (to saving lives) and not as an end in and of himself.
Therefore, the question boils down to whether or not the ends justify the means. Unfortunately, as is in the case of every question, it is impossible to every truly know the answer (in fact, epistemologically speaking it is impossible to really ever know anything at all).
By the way, I like your distinction between a "moral" decision and a "logical" decision. Kudos for that. = )
--Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: January 13th, 2005 05:51 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
God does not promote/identify with or produce SIN. The Bible does not teach that at all (Old & New Testament). SIN is what we are born with because of the fall of Adam & Eve due to their rebellion against God's rules ... funny thing at the time ... He only had ONE rule ... not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Anyway, there are NOT 7 DEADLY SINS. That false doctrine is from Satan to "confuse" people and not in the Bible at all! There is ONLY ONE sin that sends you to hell ... and that is the rejection of Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord. The Bible does not teach us to sin at all ... it tells us how God can help us out of the "slavery to sin" and His judgement upon it/us, and how to live correctly in the eyes of God (not "perfectly", for we will NEVER be until we are taken up to heaven to be with the Lord in our "resurrected bodies"). However, where all you "unbelievers" are getting confused is that God sends judgement upon the unbelieving/unrighteous. Maybe you are mistaking God's punishments/judgements for Him advocating sin??? Don't confuse the two issues. God is holy, righteous, perfect, sinless, all loving, etc. BUT ... He is also perfect justice, which means he dispenses judgement. Don't confuse sin with justice/judgement OF SIN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: December 25th, 2006 04:14 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Justice
|
I disagree. I think that being omnibenevolent and perfectly just are mutually exclusive principles. But, disregarding the intrinsic errency of that statement, I find other problems within that viewpoint.
Let's assume God exists, and in order to get into heaven, one must be a professing Christian. Aside from the injustice that billions of people who have neither heard the "word of God" or lived before Jesus' time are now doomed to hell, there is no justice in that decision. Billions upon billions of people are doomed to everlasting punishment simply because of where and when they were born. Does God not know beforehand, or choose where and when everyone is born? Does it follow then, that God condemns those people to everlasting punishment? Where is the justice in that? Where is the love in that?
Secondly, there is no justice in an "innocent man" (Jesus) being killed for all of the sins of the world. If there is "an eye for an eye" (as the bible says) then there is still quite a large amount of sin unaccounted for that God needs to balance. The blood of one innocent man does not make up for the sins of every man. If a sin weighed an ounce, then all the sins of the world would outweigh one sinless life. It doesn't balance, and even if it did balance, there are still problems within that paradigm.
How does the sin of one lifetime result in punishment for an eternity? Justice would say that if a man sinned for 70 years he should be punished for that long. Even if one were to double, triple, or quadruple his punishment, it would still not amount to deserving everlasting punishment. Where is the justice in a punishment (everlasting torture) that exceeds the crime (a life of sin)?
If God desires that all know him,(1 Tim 2:4) and God is all powerful then it must follow that all would go to heaven. If God has the will, desire, and ability to do something then it follows that it would happen. God clearly has the will, desire, and power to save everyone-yet according to christianity almost ALL of the world will go to hell. If God set out to save the WHOLE world, and not everyone is saved, then God fails. Not even half, not even a quarter of all the people who ever lived are christians, or even had the chance to be christians, so according to the bible they are doomed to go hell. Where is the justice in that?
Christians typically dodge this syllogistic issue of God's desire and power to save all, by claiming that we have "free will" and the power to thwart God's desire for all to know him, or that God wouldn't "force" anyone to go to heaven, and that it is our decision not God's. Yet, in the bible does it not say that no one chooses God, but God chooses them? If that is so, it is not the fault of those (like myself) who are unsaved, but the fault of "God-almighty" who decided not to choose those people, and therefore choose to condemn them to hell for all eternity. Where is the justice in that? where is the mercy in that? Where is the love in that?
I'll tell you where-no where. There is no justice in that.
--Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: February 2nd, 2006 11:32 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Proof of Christ's Authenticity
|
First of all, I admire the work it took for you to write your essay. My only concern is that you really dont show any proof to support your case. What i mean is that you didn't interview any prominent historians, psychologists, theologists, or archeologists. You didnt try and research the evidence for both sides of the story, and then make a logical and careful decision based off of that. I have visited many different websites devoted to arguments against Christianity, and that is the one thing that is lacking from yours, no offense. As for seeing the other side of things, all i can do is recommend some well written books from men who have searched diligently for the evidence. One is The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel. Mr. Strobel was a legal editor for the Chicago Tribune who dedicated his life to proving Christianity was immoral. Another book is Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell. He also set out to disprove Christianity while he was in college. Both ended up becoming Christians themselves. Even if you do not read those books, it is important in essays like this that you collect information for both sides of the issue from other intellectuals who did the actual field work, and apply your own verdict. I would respond to each of your arguments with detailed analysis based off the sources I have, but it would certainly take a lot of posts and a lot of time gathering the information from them. It would be easier if you were to look at at least one of the books i mentioned. But perhaps when I get the chance, I shall make some more posts. Anyways, your site is very well organized, and I admire the dedication you have put into it. Take care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: December 25th, 2006 04:56 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
I disagree completely. First off, I question the accuracy of your statistic, it seems more plausible that you made it up then that it is a legitimate number intimating the chances of failure. Secondly I highly doubt that there is any emperical way to test the chances of failure, but I admit that although I know of none, there could still be some.
Secondly, I don't think humans are evil or incapable of anything. Humans, like all living being, are naturaly self-interested and self-preserving, but that doens't mean they we are selfish, or evil. In order to serve another being, you must also look after yourself. It's natural to seek to serve oneself. If you don't exist, you can't serve someone else. You have to look after yourself in order to look after someone else.
Humans aren't selfish by nature, nor are we evil by nature. Humans naturally feel sympathy and empathy towards others. When you see someone suffering, you naturally want to aid or alleviate their suffering. When you see someone with tears rolling down their cheeks, who doesn't feel bad or want to help them out? When you see someone in physical pain, who doesn't at least feel empathy towards their pain? The point is, people feel compassion, sympathy, and empathy towards their fellow human beings. People naturally want to help them out, and want to do good.
If the world is built upon greed, then one must take into account the u | | | |
Previous
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
optimistic
Re: Love thy neighbour
thank you at least someone knows what they are talking about!