Originally posted by vistesd You’ve answered with Job.
I answer once again with Abraham, arguing with God over the fate of (the unmentioned children children of) Sodom.
Sorry, Whodey, got to be gone for awhile... Be well.
I did answer with Job in the hopes of answering regarding Abraham, Sodom and Noah.
It is interesting, however, that when Abraham haggles with God over sparing Sodom that Abraham asks God to spare them if only there were but a handful of "righteous" people living their. However, nothing is ever mentioned of the children. Why do you think thsi is?
Originally posted by KellyJay If might made right every robbery would be right since it is a matter
of might over coming the rightful ownership of things stolen.
Kelly
What if we were to define private ownership as being institutionalized "theft" from the community at large?
Originally posted by KellyJay If might made right every robbery would be right since it is a matter
of might over coming the rightful ownership of things stolen.
Kelly
But if there were no authority to apprehend such a person or bring them to justice what say you? It seems they have the "right" to take it unless a higher power says otherwise.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Since I believe there is a God then in the end God's morality will factor into what actions are moral/immoral.
Originally posted by whodey But if there were no authority to apprehend such a person or bring them to justice what say you? It seems they have the "right" to take it unless a higher power says otherwise.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Since I believe there is a God then in the end God's morality will factor into what actions are moral/immoral.
Since I believe there is a God then in the end God's morality will factor into what actions are moral/immoral.
If God told you in your sleep to kill your only child, would you do it?
Originally posted by whodey But if there were no authority to apprehend such a person or bring them to justice what say you? It seems they have the "right" to take it unless a higher power says otherwise.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Since I believe there is a God then in the end God's morality will factor into what actions are moral/immoral.
Without God it is all human personal taste in my opinion.
Kelly
Originally posted by whodey But if there were no authority to apprehend such a person or bring them to justice what say you? It seems they have the "right" to take it unless a higher power says otherwise.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Since I believe there is a God then in the end God's morality will factor into what actions are moral/immoral.
God's "morality"? We examined that in depth in some of the recent threads. Genocide, murder, destruction, all these things are part of god's "morality." You have defined a moral act as being anything god does, no matter how immoral we secular humanists may view it. A secular humanist has the moral backbone to at least decry genocide as being a universally immoral act. On the contrary, theists, in an egregious example of moral relativism, will hem and haw and say genocide can be excused if it has a divine backing. In fact any act, no matter how vile, can be excused if it can be interpreted as having god's backing.
Originally posted by rwingett God's "morality"? We examined that in depth in some of the recent threads. Genocide, murder, destruction, all these things are part of god's "morality." You have defined a moral act as being anything god does, no matter how immoral we secular humanists may view it. A secular humanist has the moral backbone to at least decry genocide as being a universally i ...[text shortened]... act, no matter how vile, can be excused if it can be interpreted as having god's backing.
Is there a difference between murder and the death penalty?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay Than no one can own anything, and if I want something of yours I
take it no worries no problem?
We already have taxes where our institutions take from the community
what more do you want?
🙂
Kelly
Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
It is clear (to some) that Jesus advocated a communal lifestyle and that private property was contrary to god's wishes. There have been many Christian sects throughout history who have taken this message to heart and tried to live a communal lifestyle. The Diggers and the True Levellers, for example, believed in the concept of "levelling men's estates" in order to create equality. They also took over common land for what they believed to be the common good.
So if it became clear to you that Jesus did not approve of private property, would that alter your conception of what constitutes theft? Wouldn't private property be the individual "stealing" from the community by keeping part of its resources for his own selfish personal gain? Wouldn't the true Christian share that wealth with the whole community?
Originally posted by rwingett No. You cannot logically be against one and for the other.
Really? I know some philosophers who think that murder is an unjust killing, but sometimes the death penalty can be just in that it is a deserved penalty. These two positions are compatible. Others claim that murder is a violation of one's right to life, but that a right to life is forfeited when one kills another unjustly. So, it is not a violation of the murderer's right to life that he be put to death. This, again, is a consistent position. There is certainly a tension between the two positions, and this tension calls for an explanation, but there are any number of explanations that have been offered. That none of them are defensible at the end of the day is a substantial thesis that itself needs defense.
Originally posted by whodey It is interesting, however, that when Abraham haggles with God over sparing Sodom that Abraham asks God to spare them if only there were but a handful of "righteous" people living their. However, nothing is ever mentioned of the children. Why do you think thsi is?
Because anal sex doesn't produce babies .. except that one time when Shav's Mom had a huge pain in the arse and dumped a load on the world.
Originally posted by bbarr Really? I know some philosophers who think that murder is an unjust killing, but sometimes the death penalty can be just in that it is a deserved penalty. These two positions are compatible. Others claim that murder is a violation of one's right to life, but that a right to life is forfeited when one kills another unjustly. So, it is not a violation of the ...[text shortened]... f them are defensible at the end of the day is a substantial thesis that itself needs defense.
Yes, of course. But it would have been more interesting to see if KellyJay could have come up with that answer. Amend my statement to read:
It is my personal opinion that one should not be against one and for the other.
Does might make right?
20 May '07 13:35
Back to Top