1. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    21 Mar '10 19:57
    Due to various discussions on morality in recent threads I would like to summarize my thoughts on the matter and get some input.
    I believe there are two types of morality.
    1. It is wrong to harm your equals. It is also wrong to deliberately allow harm to come to your equals through inaction, though this may be adjusted according to the amount of effort required to prevent said harm.
    2. What is really a different usage for the word, as in 'a person of loose morals' meaning that he doesn't adhere to the societies codes regarding sexual behavior.

    I am mostly concerned with 1. and I believe that almost any talk of morality can be derived from what I have stated in 1.
    I keep hearing people say things like "slavery was morally acceptable in the past and is no longer". I believe that that is not the case, but rather what has changed is who we accept as equals. The same issue comes up when we talk about whether it is morally acceptable to harm animals. It also comes up in fiction when there is a creature that is different from us who does not see us as equals. I have noticed this is often explored in fiction regarding vampires where there is almost invariably some who see themselves as superior to humans and thus do not see it as immoral to harm humans, and others who either see themselves as equal to humans or sometimes almost inferior, who see it as immoral to harm humans.
  2. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    21 Mar '10 20:072 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Due to various discussions on morality in recent threads I would like to summarize my thoughts on the matter and get some input.
    I believe there are two types of morality.
    1. It is wrong to harm your equals. It is also wrong to deliberately allow harm to come to your equals through inaction, though this may be adjusted according to the amount of effort lves as equal to humans or sometimes almost inferior, who see it as immoral to harm humans.
    Do you talk of 1) in an objective or relative sense?
    If the former I don't see why it would need to be a universally true statement; if the latter ignore this post.
  3. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91666
    21 Mar '10 21:35
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Due to various discussions on morality in recent threads I would like to summarize my thoughts on the matter and get some input.
    I believe there are two types of morality.
    1. It is wrong to harm your equals. It is also wrong to deliberately allow harm to come to your equals through inaction, though this may be adjusted according to the amount of effort ...[text shortened]... lves as equal to humans or sometimes almost inferior, who see it as immoral to harm humans.
    It is wrong to harm life, not just your equals! But invariably we tread on grass and spray for roaches,etc. There is always something we can do to minimize harm but morality is ultimately tied up with human to human interactions.
    Ahhh! What it means to be human(?) ...Morality is one of the key defining points in understanding that
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    22 Mar '10 01:084 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    [b]Due to various discussions on morality in recent threads I would like to summarize my thoughts on the matter and get some input.
    I believe there are two types of morality.
    1. It is wrong to harm your equals. It is also wrong to deliberately allow harm to come to your equals through inaction, though this may be adjusted according to the amount of effort required to prevent said harm.
    Then you would agree with Christ. After all, he said that we are to love our neighbor as yourself. He then indicated that if we do this, we keep all the commandments by default. After all, if you love your neighbor you will not lie to him or kill him etc.

    Of course, he used the example of the "Good Samaritan" when asked who our neighbor is. Of note is the fact that a Samaratin was seen as beneath the Jews present to hear the parable, yet, it was the Samaratin who helped the dying man as where the others just walked passed. In effect, he was calling them out for not visualizing others as their equals.

    I think the Golden Rule is a universal rule and the only way we can live with ourselves by breaking it is to visualize those we oppress as being beneath us. That is why Chirst used the parable of the lowly Samaritan. He recognized this danger. This has occured time and again like with the slaves of the deep south as they were seen more as animals than human beings. In Nazi Germany the Jews were seen as vermon and in current times many are referred to as "infidels". Of course, being a pro-lifer I would argue that the same thing is being done to the unborn by referring to them as a lowly undeveloped "fetus". It robs them of their humanity which they plainly are apart of.
  5. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    22 Mar '10 01:25
    Originally posted by whodey
    Then you would agree with Christ. After all, he said that we are to love our neighbor as yourself. He then indicated that if we do this, we keep all the commandments by default. After all, if you love your neighbor you will not lie to him or kill him etc.

    Of course, he used the example of the "Good Samaritan" when asked who our neighbor is. Of note is ...[text shortened]... owly undeveloped "fetus". It robs them of their humanity which they plainly are apart of.
    I think the Golden Rule is a universal rule and the only way we can live with ourselves by breaking it is to visualize those we oppress as being beneath us. That is why Chirst used the parable of the lowly Samaritan. He recognized this danger. This has occured time and again like with the slaves of the deep south as they were seen more as animals than human beings. In Nazi Germany the Jews were seen as vermon and in current times many are referred to as "infidels".

    And as a modern example, those who support the ostracization of homosexuals. Which, if I recall correctly, is something that you support.

    Jesus also had many teachings against hypocrisy with which you should familiarize yourself.
  6. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    22 Mar '10 01:322 edits
    you mean like,

    (Romans 1:24-27) . . .Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them,  even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen.  That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature;  and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

    and

    (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) . . .What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men,  nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.  And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean, but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

    🙂
  7. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    22 Mar '10 01:38
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    you mean like,

    (Romans 1:24-27) . . .Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them,  even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Am ...[text shortened]... en declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

    🙂
    One of the most sincere and Christian Sunday school teachers my kids ever had was a lesbian. How do you feel about that?
  8. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    22 Mar '10 02:121 edit
    Originally posted by kirksey957
    One of the most sincere and Christian Sunday school teachers my kids ever had was a lesbian. How do you feel about that?
    i dont feel anything, nope, checked my vital signs, sorry nuthin, why do you think I should ?

    I wonder how she read those passages to the class, did she read them with gusto? perhaps she daintily tiptoed around them like a little mouse, who can tell?
  9. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    22 Mar '10 02:171 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    you mean like,

    (Romans 1:24-27) . . .Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them,  even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Am ...[text shortened]... en declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

    🙂
    You must have misread my post and read "Paul" instead of "Jesus" as well as "for bigotry" instead of "against hypocrisy".

    You're not only a bigot and hypocrite, but seem quite pleased with yourself about it.
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    22 Mar '10 02:22
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    You must have misread my post and read "Paul" instead of "Jesus" as well as "for bigotry" instead of "against hypocrisy".

    You're not only a bigot and hypocrite, but seem quite pleased with yourself about it.
    unsubstantiated mere opinion, i did not write those words, i merely quoted them, simply to bring your catch phrase to the fore, how i giggle!
  11. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    22 Mar '10 02:23
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    i dont feel anything, nope, checked my vital signs, sorry nuthin, why do you think I should ?

    I wonder how she read those passages to the class, did she read them with gusto? perhaps she daintily tiptoed around them like a little mouse, who can tell?
    I think that is your problem that you don't feel anything. Even if you felt mad or or outraged by it, I'd have some hope for you.
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    22 Mar '10 02:40
    Originally posted by kirksey957
    I think that is your problem that you don't feel anything. Even if you felt mad or or outraged by it, I'd have some hope for you.
    sorry doesn't do anything for me, nor do i see why it should.
  13. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    22 Mar '10 04:26
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Due to various discussions on morality in recent threads I would like to summarize my thoughts on the matter and get some input.
    I believe there are two types of morality.
    1. It is wrong to harm your equals. It is also wrong to deliberately allow harm to come to your equals through inaction, though this may be adjusted according to the amount of effort ...[text shortened]... lves as equal to humans or sometimes almost inferior, who see it as immoral to harm humans.
    I'm sorry, but I had an entire post typed out, and due to the poor wifi connection it was lost. I'm so mad I could ring someones neck.
  14. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    22 Mar '10 04:29
    Originally posted by kirksey957
    I think that is your problem that you don't feel anything. Even if you felt mad or or outraged by it, I'd have some hope for you.
    I think robbie has had his feeling anesthetized by this forum.

    Just kidding robbie. You know I love you. Don't get any funny ideas either. 🙂
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    22 Mar '10 06:02
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Do you talk of 1) in an objective or relative sense?
    If the former I don't see why it would need to be a universally true statement; if the latter ignore this post.
    I see it as the definition of morality and as universally true. Do not however confuse it with the statement "we must behave morally". That is a different issue altogether.
Back to Top