I don't think it's immoral at all, I simply acknowledged that your opinion on these things exists (meaning that you have an opinion).
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I almost choked to death on pizza!
- Thread starter Suave
- Start date
I don't think it's immoral at all, I simply acknowledged that your opinion on these things exists (meaning that you have an opinion).
tas8831
Well-Known Member
What would be so difficult in having two pipes?
Seems it would have been a no brainer - split the nasopharynx into a right and left part surrounding the oropharynx to allow for the passage of food/drink into the esophagus, have the bifid nasopharynx reform anterior to the esophagus to enter into the larynx. The split passageway could be lined by cartilaginous rings, just like the trachea) to prevent collapse.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Why?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I would suggest that you take some classes on ethics. And logic. You cannot just assume that God is good.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You really have to ask?
I didn't assume anything here. Classes on what ethics from what philosophers? What do you expect these classes to do for me? I do have a class I can take immediately so I'll consider it, it's just a general one though.
Yes. He said "it is" and I want to know why it is. Maybe I have overlooked something and should apostatize immediately.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Hint: if you found yourself condemned to death for something your great, great, great, great grandfather did, would you consider that to be just and fair?
Depends on the circumstances. Do you have a direct explanation and not a just a hint as to why Original Sin is immoral?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
What possible circumstances do you think could possibly justify it?
It's actually rather terrifying that you need to ask why condemning the whole of creation to suffering and death (not to mention eternal punishment for people, if you believe that too), for the actions of one person, is unjust.
If I was one of the Canaanites devoted to destruction. I'd agree with it that it was just in that circumstance.
As for that parenthetical comment: no one goes into eternal punishment for the actions of another, I don't believe that, although I do believe that there is eternal punishment for those who go into it for their own actions.
I apologize if I terrify you, that is not my aim, but when walking through the forest some bugs get stepped on, so likewise walking through life some will passively receive bad from you. Sad world.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
That would be about you (being "devoted to destruction"), not what your great, great, great, great grandfather did. If your great, great, great, great grandfather was "devoted to destruction" but you weren't, in what sense would it be just?
But if we accept original sin, then there is no real choice to not sin. In fact, the very fact that the bible tells us that everybody is a sinner, makes the whole condemnation malarkey unjust. If there is a test that everybody fails, then it cannot be a choice, it would be more of a design flaw that god should be blaming itself for. That's before we get to the obvious fact that eternal punishment cannot be justified for any crime, even if we accept a primitive retribution (an eye for an eye) idea of 'justice', which we shouldn't.
Like having the pipes connected so that food can get in the air hose?
As for the example I have now been confused: am I being put to death because of what he did or not? If so then my example stands, just edit that, yes it would be just to me at least in that circumstance. There are likely others where it would be too.
Original Sin has nothing to do with there being no choice but to sin. Not sure where you got that idea. There are those who have Original Sin but don't sin, they chose not to. Not everyone fails it.
And feet that were designed for bipedalism and not a modification of existing feet with a function for walking on all fours.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yes, that was the example. You are personally blameless, but you're being put to death for the crimes of you ancestor.
Even though you are blameless?
So you disagree with the bible, for example: "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1 John 1:8 (NIV)?
Yeah it still stands even if blameless personally it'd be just to suffer the penalty.
I do not disagree with the Bible, Jesus and Mary are two humans without any sin (Original or otherwise), and those who have Original Sin but no personal sins can't truly say "I have no sin" so it doesn't disagree at all. This is a very common Catholic thing though, other Christians of various stripes might disagree, but this is part of the person/nature distinction fundamental to Christianity. It's a side issue to what we were discussing, but the point is this: a human with Original Sin may choose to do no personal sins.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Wow, just wow. A living example of how religion can destroy even the most basic human sense of right and wrong. You are exposing the true horror of what blind faith can do to somebody. I seriously hope you never get to serve on a jury.
How have I done that? Perhaps I am wrong but it seems that you have assumed we shared moral sensibilities, while this may be true in one sense I don't think it should be assumed when discussing moral questions. What is the basic human sense of right and wrong?