How does one choose?

[waitasec]

I wasn't thinking about it until you mentioned it but the truth is that Jesus did say that you will either serve Mammon or Him. I suppose He means that we are all slaves to our flesh at least in part and some almost totally but I do not live by bread alone but by every word that comes out of the mouth of God. I suppose in a sense we are all slaves to life although there are some that free themselves from it.

according to your twisted religion, your god created you as a slave to your flesh and then holds that against you...

nice.

 

[Draka]

prove it.

Impossible though he wont admit such.

 

[tempter]

I hear people say that they don't need God to be moral.

My question then is how is a person to choose?

I suppose that a position could be taken that everything is moral. Then murder and rape and beastiality and torture are all fine and dandy.

One could look at things logically. For instance Jezebel had a logical solution for Ahab's desire for a man's land. Simply kill the man and take his land.

Can a person rely on laws or traditions?

There once was a law that stores couldn't open on Sunday now there is no such law. Evidently laws change according to what people wish them to be. It used to be that holidays were celebrated on the traditional day but now holidays are often selebrated on a convenient monday. Evidently traditions change as well.

Do you mean how does one choose what's moral and what's not?
Morals depends on the culture and situation and time. Drilling down through that, it also depends on the individual. What's moral for one might not be for another.
Morality exists with or without god.

 

[Absolute Zero]

Let's compare. A slave works for his master. An employee works for his employee. A slave has to do what the master requires of him. The employee has to do what his employer requires of him. The slave is provided food, clothing and housing. An employee is provided money to purchase food, clothing and housing.

There are a few differences. The slave doesn't get to choose his food, clothing and housing but an empoyee does. A slave is not free to leave the premises without permission but an employee can go wherever he wants provided he can get to work on time.

Yep no diffrence at all. Man Somw time I really think we should all just die LoL

 

[Muffled]

prove it.

Jer 27:5 I have made the earth, the men and the beasts that are upon the face of the earth, by my great power and by my outstretched arm; and I give it unto whom it seemeth right unto me.

 

[Muffled]

according to your twisted religion, your god created you as a slave to your flesh and then holds that against you...

nice.

Your lack of understanding never seems to run dry. Man was not created to be a slave of the flesh but to have dominioin over it.

Gen 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1Jo 4:4 Ye are of God, my little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world.
1Jo 5:4 For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that hath overcome the world, even our faith.

 

[Muffled]

Do you mean how does one choose what's moral and what's not?
Morals depends on the culture and situation and time. Drilling down through that, it also depends on the individual. What's moral for one might not be for another.
Morality exists with or without god.

Are you saying that you would choose the morals of your culture. If your culture believed in roasting every fifth child in its fifth year and eating it, that would be ok with you because it is the culture?

If you mean poeple will make choices, the answer is yes but will they be good choices.

However that does not set a standard of morality. There is no way to say one person is right and another wrong. Personal choices then come into conflict. A person wants to murder me but I do not want to be murdered. My wife wants to go to Chili's for lunch but I want to go to Friday's. (The latter is probably not a moral dilemma but it is a conflict dilemma)

PS: The Bible says the man should decide but a wise man chooses to please his wife because a woman scorned no hell has seen the fury.

 

[Nakosis]

Are you saying that you would choose the morals of your culture. If your culture believed in roasting every fifth child in its fifth year and eating it, that would be ok with you because it is the culture?

Yes of course because if that is what you've been taught why would you think there is anything wrong with it. It's only because you've been taught otherwise you'd question the morality. Your morality is no better no worse then the next fellow's because it's how you were taught to think and you, as they do, find a way to justify it in your own head.

If you mean poeple will make choices, the answer is yes but will they be good choices.

It doesn't matter your judgement about the choices others make. People make choices. They justify those choices according to the morals they've been taught. Your judgement about those choices being right or wrong is irrelevant to their morality.

However that does not set a standard of morality. There is no way to say one person is right and another wrong. Personal choices then come into conflict. A person wants to murder me but I do not want to be murdered.

Civic law takes care of that.

My wife wants to go to Chili's for lunch but I want to go to Friday's. (The latter is probably not a moral dilemma but it is a conflict dilemma)

PS: The Bible says the man should decide but a wise man chooses to please his wife because a woman scorned no hell has seen the fury.

Right, you choose how to act according to the morality you've been taught. Doesn't make it right or wrong for anyone else except for someone who has been taught to accept the same morals.

 

[waitasec]

Jer 27:5 I have made the earth, the men and the beasts that are upon the face of the earth, by my great power and by my outstretched arm; and I give it unto whom it seemeth right unto me.

that isn't proof that is a claim...do you know the difference between the two?

prove it.

 

[waitasec]

Your lack of understanding never seems to run dry. Man was not created to be a slave of the flesh but to have dominioin over it.

seems to me, and i may be wrong here...but you take the genesis account literally. god created man ignorant of the moral consequences of their choices...not knowing the difference between good and evil. so god wanted adam and eve to be slaves to their fleshly desires without ever understanding what their choices meant.... so if you think having dominion requires one to have knowledge then you do have a lot of essplaining to do
but if dominion requires ignorance....whatever works for you...

 

[waitasec]

Right, you choose how to act according to the morality you've been taught. Doesn't make it right or wrong for anyone else except for someone who has been taught to accept the same morals.

sadly, there are those that never question what they were taught
:sad:

 

[Nakosis]

I hear people say that they don't need God to be moral.

My question then is how is a person to choose?

I suppose that a position could be taken that everything is moral. Then murder and rape and beastiality and torture are all fine and dandy.

No that's hyperbole. The position is that there is no absolute standard for morality. It's not that everything is moral, it's that what is right and wrong for me may not necessarily be right or wrong for you.

One could look at things logically. For instance Jezebel had a logical solution for Ahab's desire for a man's land. Simply kill the man and take his land.

That was her morality. Kind of proves mankind has no absolute standard.

Can a person rely on laws or traditions?

I don't know it depends on the individual and really the group they are a part of. For example you rely on the laws and traditions of the Bible. Fine for you. Maybe not so much for someone else.

There once was a law that stores couldn't open on Sunday now there is no such law. Evidently laws change according to what people wish them to be. It used to be that holidays were celebrated on the traditional day but now holidays are often selebrated on a convenient monday. Evidently traditions change as well.

So what? Just more evidence there is no absolute moral standard. If a store is open and I need to go there I will. If not, I'll wait a day. Traditional group morality maybe inconvenient at times but it's not the end of the world.

 

[Nakosis]

sadly, there are those that never question what they were taught
:sad:

Some external cause has to come into play.
Some unique individuals seem exceptions to this.
Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, Mandela...

They usually get killed/imprisoned for questioning the cultural norm.

We see them as good now. I don't know if we'd see them as good if we had been brought up in the culture that they were confronting.

I've no delusions. I am who I am because people like these have had great influence over the culture I've been brought up in.

I grew up in the Hippie era. A culture which taught me to question authority.

If I had grown up in a different time and place, I'd have a different set of morals then I do now. If I had grow up among the Hebrew tribes, I'd probably have no problem with OT morality.

So I don't see biblical morality as right or wrong. It's just not mine. People who want to try and pass off OT morality as a standard for everyone are just fooling themselves IMO.

 

[Muffled]

seems to me, and i may be wrong here...but you take the genesis account literally. god created man ignorant of the moral consequences of their choices...not knowing the difference between good and evil. so god wanted adam and eve to be slaves to their fleshly desires without ever understanding what their choices meant.... so if you think having dominion requires one to have knowledge then you do have a lot of essplaining to do
but if dominion requires ignorance....whatever works for you...

You are suggesting that they might inadvertantly do something evil. I doubt that is the case.

Not at all.

One must know what the world is in order to have dominion over it.

Dominion requires ignorance of evil.

 

[waitasec]

You are suggesting that they might inadvertantly do something evil. I doubt that is the case.

whatever they would do they would be ignorant of the moral implications.
raping, stealing, killing, coveting would just be acts that they would commit ...more ignorant of their actions than pack animals who do btw, follow a code of conduct within their group.

Not at all.

and? thats all you got...? this is not a rational argument "not at all"
perhaps if you tried a little harder you can come up with a reason to support your "not at all" claim
:beach:

One must know what the world is in order to have dominion over it.

one doesn't need to know the implications of good and evil to name animals and tend the earth...however not knowing the implications of good and evil will make the job a little more difficult...since adam's job was to tend the earth, him being a slave to his body would probably make him a sloth

Dominion requires ignorance of evil.

:spit:
you have absolutely no idea what you are saying do you?
they were ignorant of good too...cherry picking at it's best.

 

[Muffled]

No that's hyperbole. The position is that there is no absolute standard for morality. It's not that everything is moral, it's that what is right and wrong for me may not necessarily be right or wrong for you.

That was her morality. Kind of proves mankind has no absolute standard.

I don't know it depends on the individual and really the group they are a part of. For example you rely on the laws and traditions of the Bible. Fine for you. Maybe not so much for someone else.

So what? Just more evidence there is no absolute moral standard. If a store is open and I need to go there I will. If not, I'll wait a day. Traditional group morality maybe inconvenient at times but it's not the end of the world.

This is where God disagrees with you. He has an absolute standard of morality. It is true that those without God have no standard of morality, except their own personal standaed.

Things are either right or wrong for everyone. The moon doesn't shine in the sky for one person. Closing eyes and pretending the moon isn't there doesn't make the moon go away. The standard is still there even if a person does not acknowledge it as his own. However my question is how does one come up with his own standard? From whence does it proceed? What is its origin?

No it only proves that Jezebel worshipped a false god whose standard was wrong.

So laws can be obeyed as long as they agree with one's personal standard and disobeyed if they don't agree.

So one can't consider laws an absolute standard because they change.

 

[Muffled]

whatever they would do they would be ignorant of the moral implications.
raping, stealing, killing, coveting would just be acts that they would commit ...more ignorant of their actions than pack animals who do btw, follow a code of conduct within their group.


and? thats all you got...? this is not a rational argument "not at all"
perhaps if you tried a little harder you can come up with a reason to support your "not at all" claim
:beach:



one doesn't need to know the implications of good and evil to name animals and tend the earth...however not knowing the implications of good and evil will make the job a little more difficult...since adam's job was to tend the earth, him being a slave to his body would probably make him a sloth

:spit:
you have absolutely no idea what you are saying do you?
they were ignorant of good too...cherry picking at it's best.

This is not the case. Having no knowledge of evil precludes them from committing the evil.

Granted. I was pressed for time. Adam and Eve could not choose to do evil because they had no knowledge of it.

Sloth is an evil and Adam would not have known about it. The body likes to be worked but it doesn't like to be tired.

You are making an assumption that they didn't know what is good. They knew how to do good without realizing that it was good. The knowledge that it was good came with the understanding that some things aren't good.

For instance, I receive a letter. All I know is that it is a letter. I don't know if it is good news or bad news until I open it. However the letter may contain good news before I know that it is good news.

 

[waitasec]

This is not the case. Having no knowledge of evil precludes them from committing the evil.

not having knowledge of good would also preclude them from committing the good

Granted. I was pressed for time. Adam and Eve could not choose to do evil because they had no knowledge of it.

a & e could not choose good as they had no knowledge of it either

Sloth is an evil and Adam would not have known about it. The body likes to be worked but it doesn't like to be tired.

then you agree...

You are making an assumption that they didn't know what is good. They knew how to do good without realizing that it was good.

you are also making an assumption that they knew how to do evil without realizing that it was evil...it goes both ways. you cannot have one without the other. contrast.

The knowledge that it was good came with the understanding that some things aren't good.

how, if they didn't have the knowledge...they were forbidden to have it, remember?

For instance, I receive a letter. All I know is that it is a letter. I don't know if it is good news or bad news until I open it. However the letter may contain good news before I know that it is good news.

good and bad news has nothing to do with knowing the nature of good and evil...
your example was not about good but preferable news or un-welcomed news
besides, it's irrelevant....your POV is POST fall...we are talking about the state of their being PRE fall...

 

[Nakosis]

This is where God disagrees with you. He has an absolute standard of morality. It is true that those without God have no standard of morality, except their own personal standaed.

Actually this is were you disagree with me. Unless you happen to be God posting under a pseudonym. You claim to have God but can't prove it. Anyone can make the same claim.

Things are either right or wrong for everyone. The moon doesn't shine in the sky for one person. Closing eyes and pretending the moon isn't there doesn't make the moon go away. The standard is still there even if a person does not acknowledge it as his own. However my question is how does one come up with his own standard? From whence does it proceed? What is its origin?

The topic is about moral decisions, not whether the moon is in the sky. When I or you make a decision to act. Is it a "right" one.
How that individual standard is developed is a matter of many differing influences. Culturally, for example Christianity has had a lot of cultural influence in the west. Likely why it seems natural to you. Books you read, movies you watch. Parents, teachers, experiences you've had through-out life all go into developing an individuals sense of morals.

It's part of being a social animal.

No it only proves that Jezebel worshipped a false god whose standard was wrong.

So might makes right? Whoever wins the religious war choose the right God to follow? My God is stronger then your God. Kind of the basis for religious idealism right? You can't be sure that you are following the true God until all of the false beliefs are defeated/destroyed?

So laws can be obeyed as long as they agree with one's personal standard and disobeyed if they don't agree.

So one can't consider laws an absolute standard because they change.

Right, my argument is there is no absolute standard nor is on needed. We develop morals regardless of any standard provided by any particular deity. Whoever wins the wars gets to promote their standards. This is true whether there is or is not a God.

So you pick one deity to follow and hope you win all of the battles.

I'm not into whole might makes right kind of thinking. I'm aware that some group may come along and kick my backside. However I'm not going to change the values my morals are based on just because of that. I don't even think I could. They are what they are.

I understand most want to be on the winning team. To be on the team you have to accept the rules of the team. Team Yahweh...

My values, it's not important to be on the winning team. Different values, different morals. What I value is compassion and love. I don't need to be on the winning team for those things. My God doesn't have to beat every other God on the block.

 

[Straw Dog]

I think the burden rests on the side claiming that there cannot be moral behavior without a belief in God, etc.

How do they explain my moral agency? Or can they claim that I am immoral?