Apparently, the religious on RF don't even know the difference between good and bad.

[Madhuri]

I agree with your disagreement.

Essentially millions of sperm deaths occur to make one potentially viable human child.

Edit: Am I the only one who realizes how far off-topic we are lmao?

Haha, we really have! I guess even forum topics experience a natural evolutionary process

 

[McBell]

However, before the sperm and the egg meet you do not exist. Isn't it upon conception that you begin to exist? Ie/ living cells combine to create a new individual life that is you?

I reckon it depends on where you decide to draw that particular line.

 

[AlsoAnima]

Religious folks on RF seem to be completely incapable of determining what actions are morally good and what actions are morally bad. I find this astounding! Do you?

As proof, can anyone here give just ONE example of an action that is considered good? One that is considered evil? I'm not trying to trick you. I just asked this in another thread and zero point zero people could give a direct response.

One Good Action) Eating exactly how much you need, and not more
One Bad Action) Hoarding money

I reckon it depends on where you decide to draw that particular line.

When the complete formula for a human is wrapped in a single organic package is where I draw the line.

~Fin

 

[McBell]

When the complete formula for a human is wrapped in a single organic package is where I draw the line.

~Fin

Fair enough.
We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[AlsoAnima]

Fair enough.
We will just have to agree to disagree.

I suppose so.
My belief is based on the fact that you can defined a creature by it's DNA, but perhaps that's too theoretical.

 

[McBell]

but perhaps that's too theoretical.

Most definately

 

[Kathryn]

To Kathryn:
How about...
A man is holding a sharp pointed kitchen knife while chopping vegetables. In the kitchen are a number of friends, laughing together happily. One asks a question of the cook, who turns to face his friend and in that moment suffers an enormous sneezing attack that causes him to involuntarily stumble forward, stabbing his friend in the stomach. The friend dies shortly after the incident.

This man is responsible for the death of his friend. Does that make him evil?

This is easy - no, the man is not evil. It was an ACCIDENT.

Nor was the action evil. Which action - the sneezing, the stumble, chopping vegetables? Neither the action nor the persons involved were evil.

 

[Kathryn]

I think all we're doing is throwing phraseology back and forth at each other. What really matters is our APPLICATION of our belief systems, no matter what the labels or words are.

Here is my application of my personal belief system:

Jesus' call to action was this: "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself." A variation from another gospel is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Paul tells us, "As much as is possible, live at peace with all men."

These moral guides are pretty easy to apply in my life - don't know about the rest of you, but these have worked well for me. Generally speaking, when I DON'T follow these guides, there can be and have been some negative ramifications, for myself and others.

When I put the needs of others first - when I esteem others above myself - things generally slide into place.

Do the right thing. This isn't usually a very difficult thing to figure out how to do, but I think people make it confusing because they so often don't WANT to do the right thing. Doing the right thing often involved personal sacrifice or denial - and we'd often rather build elaborate reasonings (excuses) for why we AREN'T doing the right thing.

Sure we all have tough moral decisions to make sometimes. But it's like another great concept from the Bible - He who is faithful in small things will be faithful in big things. If we discipline ourselves in the little actions - often the actions no one else sees, or the mindset that we know we should get under control - then when the larger, tougher decisions in life loom before us, we have the self discipline and mental fortitude to make the best call - and to live with the consequences.

 

[Autodidact]

This is a ridiculous question.

No, wait, it's a straw man.

First of all, if someone truly believed that he was helping innocent people by killing them, whether it was one person or one thousand people, that person would be MENTALLY DERANGED - which can differ from being evil, though often the two are present together.

I would venture to say that in order for a person to deginerate into such a psychopathic state, they would have had a lot of evil in their hearts to begin with - or they are totally insane and need to be institutionalized, treated, whatever.

John Emil List killed his entire family. If he is to be believed, it was to prevent them from going to hell. That is, he wanted to kill them while they were still eligible for heaven. Also he thought it would be better for them to be dead than go on welfare.

I don't know whether he mounted an insanity defense, but he was eventually found guilty of murder.

 

[TheKnight]

Not at all. BTW, how much for your daughter?

I haven't got any children.

Yes, there is. Ownership of a person as property is inherently immoral regardless of how well that person is treated.

Inherently immoral? Even if the person being owned consents to it?

Besides, usage of the English word own may not necessarily reflect the Hebrew equivalent (or in this case non-equivalent). In Hebrew, there is no way to say (literally) "I own you." The English concept of ownership is not present in Hebrew.

But your Hasidic friends are subject to those commands, and you seem to agree that that's a good thing. I understand that as a "Hasidic Noahide" you get to have all the self-righteousness with none of the religious obligations, but if you want be able to dismiss the Torah as irrelevant, I think you're going to need a new label.

I have never stated that the Torah is irrelevant.

Well try this: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
--Hillelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder#cite_note-2

Indeed. In fact, I believe that it is your misunderstanding of Torah which causes you to think that the laws of Torah are anything less than expressions of loving your neighbor.

I find it very disgusting that you would be capable of killing innocent people if you had the delusion your God commanded you to do so.

I would never kill anyone intentionally. Even in self-defence. And I abhor war. So I would not want to kill anyone on a battlefield unless they invaded my country and threatened my home, family, and friends. Even then, I would rather they leave and attempt to take prisoners rather than kill.

But there is a world of difference between killing in defence and killing because a celestial dictator told you to. If the word of your delusion is enough for you to kill innocent people en masse, then I sincerely hope you note the error in the way of your thinking before this delusion comes to fruition.

I am glad that you, as an Atheist (at least I presume you are an Atheist), agree with me that the ending of a life is a tragedy in all circumstances. Be they justifiable or not.

 

[Autodidact]

Inherently immoral? Even if the person being owned consents to it?

Why bring up irrelevant hypos? In the Tanakh, God authorizes the Jews to capture, buy, sell and leave other people as inheritance. Consent doesn't enter into it.

Besides, usage of the English word own may not necessarily reflect the Hebrew equivalent (or in this case non-equivalent). In Hebrew, there is no way to say (literally) "I own you." The English concept of ownership is not present in Hebrew.

Baloney.

verb

1. לִהיוֹת בַּעַל-
2. לִהיוֹת בַּעַל לְ-
3. לְהַחזִיק (בְּבַעֲלוּ&#1514
4. לִקְנוֹת

Indeed. In fact, I believe that it is your misunderstanding of Torah which causes you to think that the laws of Torah are anything less than expressions of loving your neighbor.

I don't know, but for me loving someone also includes not killing them.

The Torah is full of page after page of "Kill all of them, kill the babies, kill everything that breathes, they killed all the Thisites, the Thosites, and Theotherites." It's a major theme. Not an instance or two, but page after page. And I find that extremely unloving, don't you?

In any case, I quote Hillel to try to get you to think about why slavery is immoral. Unless either (1) you disagree with Hillel or (2) you would like to be a slave. Because I have some windows that need washing.

I am glad that you, as an Atheist (at least I presume you are an Atheist), agree with me that the ending of a life is a tragedy in all circumstances. Be they justifiable or not.

Of course, but what on earth does it have to do with our discussion?

If you kill someone in self-defense, is it murder?

 

[Autodidact]

I haven't got any children.

That's O.K.; I'll take you then. I've got a shed you can sleep in and a little leftover gruel for you to eat.

 

[Autodidact]

So, just to be clear, TheKnight, is it your position that slavery is moral? That there's nothing wrong with capturing someone from another country, enslaving them, and keeping them and their descendants in involuntary servitude, buying and selling them like cattle? Is that your position?

 

[TheKnight]

Why bring up irrelevant hypos? In the Tanakh, God authorizes the Jews to capture, buy, sell and leave other people as inheritance. Consent doesn't enter into it.

The concept of slavery in Halakha includes the consent of the person entering into the contract.

And I find that extremely unloving, don't you?

I find it terrible that you read the Torah and that's all you see.

So, just to be clear, TheKnight, is it your position that slavery is moral? That there's nothing wrong with capturing someone from another country, enslaving them, and keeping them and their descendants in involuntary servitude, buying and selling them like cattle? Is that your position?

It is wrong to enlist the service of a person without their consent.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I'm not claiming that I do.

From your earlier post.

Just because we don't give you the answer you want to hear doesn't mean we have no idea what you are talking about.

I will say it again. You have no idea what I want to hear.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Good and evil are relative. What is good to another, is wrong to someone else. A crime in the eyes of one person is a justifiable act to another.
It's like the saying "A terrorist in one nation is a hero to another."

More support for the OP.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I would take you up on your challenge if I thought it would do any good. But one thing I have learned in my life is that you can't convince anybody of anything they don't want to believe. :angel2:

More support for the OP.

Not asking you to convince me of anything, BTW. Just want to hear what you think a good action would be and what an evil action would be. It's a pretty softball question.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I agree with Christine on this one. I think this is largely a futile exercise. At best, it provides evidence that some (but by no means all) believers have remedial moral views. But perhaps you could just as easily provide evidence that some (but by no means all) non-believers have remedial moral views. At any rate, the notion that no religious people know the difference between good and bad is absurd.

Is it as absurd as a forum full of religous folks who refuse to say what is a good action and what is an evil one? I honest can't believe that you guys won't answer this. Jesus was quite clear on several actions that were good and several that were evil. What's the big deal?

 

[Scott1]

Is it as absurd as a forum full of religous folks who refuse to say what is a good action and what is an evil one?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I find it a bit too simple a question....

To give my opinion if an act is morally good or evil I need more information. To call an action evil, I would need to know if it was committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

"Good or evil" speaks to the actor and not the act.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I find it a bit too simple a question....

To give my opinion if an act is morally good or evil I need more information. To call an action evil, I would need to know if it was committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

"Good or evil" speaks to the actor and not the act.

Aye, but didn't the Lord your God command "Thou shall not kill"? Is God's Word not enough? Or do you require more justification ?