Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Why is it "wrong"

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 9:04:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 8:23:32 PM, janesix wrote:
To be judgmental? It works well as a defense mechanism.

Becuase judgements lead to immoral treatment. If I see someone and judge that they are dumb, that judgement would make me treat them like they are dumb, which isn't fair to the person because its probably not their fault they are dumb, or they actually are really smart, but your judgements are inherently fallible.
janesix
Posts: 3,472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 9:07:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 9:04:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:23:32 PM, janesix wrote:
To be judgmental? It works well as a defense mechanism.

Becuase judgements lead to immoral treatment. If I see someone and judge that they are dumb, that judgement would make me treat them like they are dumb, which isn't fair to the person because its probably not their fault they are dumb, or they actually are really smart, but your judgements are inherently fallible.

Judgment is necessary for self-preservation. If you aren't wary about people, harm can come to you.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 9:13:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 9:07:54 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:04:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:23:32 PM, janesix wrote:
To be judgmental? It works well as a defense mechanism.

Becuase judgements lead to immoral treatment. If I see someone and judge that they are dumb, that judgement would make me treat them like they are dumb, which isn't fair to the person because its probably not their fault they are dumb, or they actually are really smart, but your judgements are inherently fallible.

Judgment is necessary for self-preservation. If you aren't wary about people, harm can come to you.

How? Even if there are a few isolated incidents, the amount of times its offensive much outweighs the amount of times its defensive.
janesix
Posts: 3,472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 9:38:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 9:13:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:07:54 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:04:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:23:32 PM, janesix wrote:
To be judgmental? It works well as a defense mechanism.

Becuase judgements lead to immoral treatment. If I see someone and judge that they are dumb, that judgement would make me treat them like they are dumb, which isn't fair to the person because its probably not their fault they are dumb, or they actually are really smart, but your judgements are inherently fallible.

Judgment is necessary for self-preservation. If you aren't wary about people, harm can come to you.

How? Even if there are a few isolated incidents, the amount of times its offensive much outweighs the amount of times its defensive.

I think it is a natural human instinct to judge other people. I don't see how it's morally wrong, as in something we should strive to overcome.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 9:58:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 9:38:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:13:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:07:54 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:04:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:23:32 PM, janesix wrote:
To be judgmental? It works well as a defense mechanism.

Becuase judgements lead to immoral treatment. If I see someone and judge that they are dumb, that judgement would make me treat them like they are dumb, which isn't fair to the person because its probably not their fault they are dumb, or they actually are really smart, but your judgements are inherently fallible.

Judgment is necessary for self-preservation. If you aren't wary about people, harm can come to you.

How? Even if there are a few isolated incidents, the amount of times its offensive much outweighs the amount of times its defensive.

I think it is a natural human instinct to judge other people. I don't see how it's morally wrong, as in something we should strive to overcome.

Natural human instinct has no relevence to the matter of just
janesix
Posts: 3,472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 10:04:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 9:58:48 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:38:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:13:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:07:54 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:04:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:23:32 PM, janesix wrote:
To be judgmental? It works well as a defense mechanism.

Becuase judgements lead to immoral treatment. If I see someone and judge that they are dumb, that judgement would make me treat them like they are dumb, which isn't fair to the person because its probably not their fault they are dumb, or they actually are really smart, but your judgements are inherently fallible.

Judgment is necessary for self-preservation. If you aren't wary about people, harm can come to you.

How? Even if there are a few isolated incidents, the amount of times its offensive much outweighs the amount of times its defensive.

I think it is a natural human instinct to judge other people. I don't see how it's morally wrong, as in something we should strive to overcome.

Natural human instinct has no relevence to the matter of just

And how you respond to a natural instinctual reaction to another person(judgement) should have no affect on your behavior(how you treat them). That's where the morality comes in.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 10:05:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 10:04:07 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:58:48 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:38:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:13:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:07:54 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:04:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:23:32 PM, janesix wrote:
To be judgmental? It works well as a defense mechanism.

Becuase judgements lead to immoral treatment. If I see someone and judge that they are dumb, that judgement would make me treat them like they are dumb, which isn't fair to the person because its probably not their fault they are dumb, or they actually are really smart, but your judgements are inherently fallible.

Judgment is necessary for self-preservation. If you aren't wary about people, harm can come to you.

How? Even if there are a few isolated incidents, the amount of times its offensive much outweighs the amount of times its defensive.

I think it is a natural human instinct to judge other people. I don't see how it's morally wrong, as in something we should strive to overcome.

Natural human instinct has no relevence to the matter of just

And how you respond to a natural instinctual reaction to another person(judgement) should have no affect on your behavior(how you treat them). That's where the morality comes in.

That makes no sense. Morality doesn't have to do with primal instinct lol
janesix
Posts: 3,472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 10:07:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 10:05:00 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 10:04:07 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:58:48 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:38:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:13:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:07:54 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:04:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:23:32 PM, janesix wrote:
To be judgmental? It works well as a defense mechanism.

Becuase judgements lead to immoral treatment. If I see someone and judge that they are dumb, that judgement would make me treat them like they are dumb, which isn't fair to the person because its probably not their fault they are dumb, or they actually are really smart, but your judgements are inherently fallible.

Judgment is necessary for self-preservation. If you aren't wary about people, harm can come to you.

How? Even if there are a few isolated incidents, the amount of times its offensive much outweighs the amount of times its defensive.

I think it is a natural human instinct to judge other people. I don't see how it's morally wrong, as in something we should strive to overcome.

Natural human instinct has no relevence to the matter of just

And how you respond to a natural instinctual reaction to another person(judgement) should have no affect on your behavior(how you treat them). That's where the morality comes in.

That makes no sense. Morality doesn't have to do with primal instinct lol

Of course it does. Morality is based on going against a basic instinct. You feel anger, you refrain from punching them in the face. You want to have sex with someone who is uninterested, you refrain from raping them.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 10:11:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 10:07:53 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 10:05:00 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 10:04:07 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:58:48 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:38:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:13:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:07:54 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/8/2016 9:04:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:23:32 PM, janesix wrote:
To be judgmental? It works well as a defense mechanism.

Becuase judgements lead to immoral treatment. If I see someone and judge that they are dumb, that judgement would make me treat them like they are dumb, which isn't fair to the person because its probably not their fault they are dumb, or they actually are really smart, but your judgements are inherently fallible.

Judgment is necessary for self-preservation. If you aren't wary about people, harm can come to you.

How? Even if there are a few isolated incidents, the amount of times its offensive much outweighs the amount of times its defensive.

I think it is a natural human instinct to judge other people. I don't see how it's morally wrong, as in something we should strive to overcome.

Natural human instinct has no relevence to the matter of just

And how you respond to a natural instinctual reaction to another person(judgement) should have no affect on your behavior(how you treat them). That's where the morality comes in.

That makes no sense. Morality doesn't have to do with primal instinct lol

Of course it does. Morality is based on going against a basic instinct. You feel anger, you refrain from punching them in the face. You want to have sex with someone who is uninterested, you refrain from raping them.

Morality has no relation to primal instinct, it makes no difference if its for or against a basic instinct. Your examples don't make any sense; you act as if every single immoral action is a primal instinct. What about protecting your children? What about surviving? These are all instincts, but going against them (letting you children die and killing yourself), aren't necessarily moral acts. You reasoning makes no sense.
imperialchimp
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 5:26:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
If you ask me, morality is subjective. but what usually determines your own morality is whether or not you felt guilty about your action. If you felt guilty about it, then you did something that was morally wrong.
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!
keithprosser
Posts: 2,053
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 5:56:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Are we talking about being judgemental ot making moral judgements? Being judgemental suggests making judgements when not in full possession of all the relevant facts, or making hypocritical pronouncements. I think it's obvious why being judgemental in that sense is wrong. Is anyone claiming making rational, informed and fair moral judgements is wrong?
Nivek
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 4:42:23 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Keith is correct. Personal judgement or anything of the sort are mere speculation. Unless you're worried about your social status, there really is nothing grand about social perception. It's either you base your self-worth on what others think of you or you base your well-being on your self-driven goals. I typically avoid those who soak up their surroundings and act as if that's the bigger picture.
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 4:48:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 8:23:32 PM, janesix wrote:
To be judgmental? It works well as a defense mechanism.

To be judgmental is to in act and deed judge another, and what should give you that right? Are you the other's superior? Are they your subordinate?

One man's judgment on another is no more meaningful than a rainstorm. It may happen, and it may bring results from its happening, but its impact dries at its passing.
Tsar of DDO
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 5:32:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 8:23:32 PM, janesix wrote:
To be judgmental? It works well as a defense mechanism.

Maybe one should consider what judgement is actually for, and if it"s for something then is there a correct and incorrect use thereof?

On can discover that one"s own judgement is insufficient for the goal in mind, could be learning to play baseball, and decide to seek the judgements of others to adopt to overcome short comings in performance valued. And then there could be judgement offered such as God"s judgement given to Adam for the goal of staying alive, in the garden and in the Presence of God. Of which Adam went by his own judgement of what was good for himself, and disregarded God"s Judgement.

But it is still judgement.

It"s not the judgement of the criminal, to hang for his crimes, it"s the judgement of the society that is going to hang him for his crimes. But it was the judgement of the criminal to commit the crime. Because if he was in agreement with the law, such as citizenry for example, he was morally bound, in this case, or if he was within the justification, of the law, no matter his personal beliefs, by default he was morally bound.

But to expose someone else"s error in judgement is another matter. Is it to exposure to help the other to prevent doing it again or help overcome or prevent doing harm to themselves? Or is it to promote guilt shame and condemnation? If it"s to condemn, then what do you do if you can"t convince the person of sin? Considering the condemner is also a sinner.

condemners are guilty, because those who love mercy and would have mercy know they have been forgiven and wouldn't condemn but request mercy for the condemned.

the Creator and Judge is wise, because He don't have to judge man to condemn man, man suffers the result of man's own judgements. God's Judgement is Life and there is no real Mercy unless it come from God who has the power to make it so.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 2:30:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/8/2016 8:23:32 PM, janesix wrote:
To be judgmental? It works well as a defense mechanism.

Treat others as you would wish to be treated. Do you like when people judge you without giving you a chance? Then don't do it to others.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 4:33:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 2:30:38 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:23:32 PM, janesix wrote:
To be judgmental? It works well as a defense mechanism.

Treat others as you would wish to be treated. Do you like when people judge you without giving you a chance? Then don't do it to others.

But what if you"re a masochist?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 4:50:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 4:33:25 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/30/2016 2:30:38 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:23:32 PM, janesix wrote:
To be judgmental? It works well as a defense mechanism.

Treat others as you would wish to be treated. Do you like when people judge you without giving you a chance? Then don't do it to others.

But what if you"re a masochist?

I was trying to keep it simple. I actually reject the "Treat others as you would wish to be treated" principal, I just kept it at that since it is the common way of phrasing it. The principal is actually "treat others as they would wish to be treated". It's just that in most cases people don't explain every detail we need to know in order to understand what they would want, so we have to use our own experiences and preferences as our metric.

This is of course what makes morality complicated, and why we sometimes have an unjustified negative view of other people. You may have a friend for example that expects you to defend him when he does or says something stupid just because in his mind that's what friends are supposed to do, and yet you refuse to do this because you believe "right is right". If he gets mad at you it is probably because he would defend you if you did something stupid, so in his mind you are a self serving jerk. What he may not realize is that you would not expect nor even want to be defended if your actions were indefensible, so the real problem is not that either of you is a jerk but that you simply have different views of how we should all interact with each other.

Some things are complicated because we have different views of how we think things should be. Others, like "don't steal" are quite simple because almost no one thinks theft is a desirable component of human interaction. The OP gives us a simple example, no one wishes to be prematurely judged based on the actions of others.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:15:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 4:50:33 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/30/2016 4:33:25 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/30/2016 2:30:38 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/8/2016 8:23:32 PM, janesix wrote:
To be judgmental? It works well as a defense mechanism.

Treat others as you would wish to be treated. Do you like when people judge you without giving you a chance? Then don't do it to others.

But what if you"re a masochist?

I was trying to keep it simple. I actually reject the "Treat others as you would wish to be treated" principal, I just kept it at that since it is the common way of phrasing it. The principal is actually "treat others as they would wish to be treated". It's just that in most cases people don't explain every detail we need to know in order to understand what they would want, so we have to use our own experiences and preferences as our metric.

This is of course what makes morality complicated, and why we sometimes have an unjustified negative view of other people. You may have a friend for example that expects you to defend him when he does or says something stupid just because in his mind that's what friends are supposed to do, and yet you refuse to do this because you believe "right is right". If he gets mad at you it is probably because he would defend you if you did something stupid, so in his mind you are a self serving jerk. What he may not realize is that you would not expect nor even want to be defended if your actions were indefensible, so the real problem is not that either of you is a jerk but that you simply have different views of how we should all interact with each other.

Some things are complicated because we have different views of how we think things should be. Others, like "don't steal" are quite simple because almost no one thinks theft is a desirable component of human interaction. The OP gives us a simple example, no one wishes to be prematurely judged based on the actions of others.

Truth is, I wasn"t really serious, but if you are referring to what Jesus said it"s actually "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Mat 22:39) and if you hate yourself that"s not what He was talking about.

If I understand where you have been coming from, an atheist"s view would be complicated, as a group. If everyone goes by their own chosen set of morals then everybody is in the right, and no one is incorrect about what they think is good or evil.

It seems the problem with that for example, is what I see as good for me could be to kill this person and take his belongings and enslave his women and maybe sell them. And I would be correct according to my own judgements of what is good for me, (until proven otherwise of course). Of which I could modify my good and evil rules for me to suit my desires and or needs.
But if there is to be a peaceful coexistence betwixt humans, then an agreement of sorts is required. Then the content of the agreement says what is good and evil to those in that agreement. No offence but it seems this is where atheism lacks big time.

so it would stand to reason that even a simple concept of "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" would be modified and manipulated to suit the judgements and desires of the individual to what they want or think it ought to be or say. to match or fit their own chosen set of morals.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:37:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:15:25 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/30/2016 4:50:33 PM, Double_R wrote:
I was trying to keep it simple. I actually reject the "Treat others as you would wish to be treated" principal, I just kept it at that since it is the common way of phrasing it. The principal is actually "treat others as they would wish to be treated". It's just that in most cases people don't explain every detail we need to know in order to understand what they would want, so we have to use our own experiences and preferences as our metric.

This is of course what makes morality complicated, and why we sometimes have an unjustified negative view of other people. You may have a friend for example that expects you to defend him when he does or says something stupid just because in his mind that's what friends are supposed to do, and yet you refuse to do this because you believe "right is right". If he gets mad at you it is probably because he would defend you if you did something stupid, so in his mind you are a self serving jerk. What he may not realize is that you would not expect nor even want to be defended if your actions were indefensible, so the real problem is not that either of you is a jerk but that you simply have different views of how we should all interact with each other.

Some things are complicated because we have different views of how we think things should be. Others, like "don't steal" are quite simple because almost no one thinks theft is a desirable component of human interaction. The OP gives us a simple example, no one wishes to be prematurely judged based on the actions of others.

Truth is, I wasn"t really serious, but if you are referring to what Jesus said it"s actually "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Mat 22:39) and if you hate yourself that"s not what He was talking about.

If I understand where you have been coming from, an atheist"s view would be complicated, as a group. If everyone goes by their own chosen set of morals then everybody is in the right, and no one is incorrect about what they think is good or evil.

It seems the problem with that for example, is what I see as good for me could be to kill this person and take his belongings and enslave his women and maybe sell them. And I would be correct according to my own judgements of what is good for me, (until proven otherwise of course). Of which I could modify my good and evil rules for me to suit my desires and or needs.

The idea I described was not "whatever is good for me is moral". That's just the usual theist strawman.

But if there is to be a peaceful coexistence betwixt humans, then an agreement of sorts is required. Then the content of the agreement says what is good and evil to those in that agreement. No offence but it seems this is where atheism lacks big time.

Please explain why we need a God to determine the content of an agreement that is beneficial to everyone.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 3:30:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:37:10 PM, Double_R wrote:

The idea I described was not "whatever is good for me is moral".

yea, so, was I supposed to care about that or something?

That's just the usual theist strawman.

no without agreements between persons and or peoples there is no morals or something to be guilty of. therefore all is fair without agreements. simple people do as they see fit until a law is made to set the rules. which is a agreement to do such and such.

But if there is to be a peaceful coexistence betwixt humans, then an agreement of sorts is required. Then the content of the agreement says what is good and evil to those in that agreement. No offence but it seems this is where atheism lacks big time.

Please explain why we need a God to determine the content of an agreement that is beneficial to everyone.

if you insist;

here's one

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

here's another since all are born into the life of dust to dust, and not the life that was lost. by the by this is the promice of the coming Christ.

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Here's another since all are now, are from Noah

Gen 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Gen 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
here's one since all are from Adam
Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Gen 9:7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
Gen 9:8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
Gen 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
Gen 9:10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
Gen 9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Gen 9:17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

and just to shorten it up sicne there was much in the agreements with Abraham and the Childern of Israel we will go to, the fulfillment of all previous covenats (agreements) and the one that stands now

Joh_3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

just to mention a few
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 12:58:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 3:30:34 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:37:10 PM, Double_R wrote:

The idea I described was not "whatever is good for me is moral".

yea, so, was I supposed to care about that or something?

You cared enough to write a 3 paragraph response to what I wrote about it, or rather to your own fabricated version of it anyway.

That's just the usual theist strawman.

no without agreements between persons and or peoples there is no morals or something to be guilty of. therefore all is fair without agreements. simple people do as they see fit until a law is made to set the rules. which is a agreement to do such and such.

Are you making your own argument, or just misrepresenting mine?

Please explain why we need a God to determine the content of an agreement that is beneficial to everyone.

if you insist;

here's one

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
...

None of this has anything to do with what I just asked you.