None of it is a lie. It's just an overview of Christian art and stories. Unless you think Bible stories, stories of saints and martyrs and Christian iconography are lies.
-
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!
Inherently wrong actions?
- Thread starter Acim
- Start date
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
No, Christian martyrdom is no lie. Biblical stories are not lies. Your perspective and perspectives like yours are lies. And I will have no part in them.None of it is a lie. It's just an overview of Christian art and stories. Unless you think Bible stories, stories of saints and martyrs and Christian iconography are lies.
PS, I suggest you just stay on topic.
I'm not sure what the hell your problem is. You've been highly rude and insulting. Why are you so defensive? If you can't handle different perspectives, then you shouldn't be here. If your faith is so strong and you're so assured that you have the truth, then what people say or what you read/see on a website shouldn't bother you so much. So you need to check your attitude.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
It is interesting that you feel that way. You said to me, "Sadomasochism is a big thing in most forms of Christianity. You adore a human sacrifice that was tortured to death, for starters." This statement was insulting to me. I'm sorry you feel insulted. I'm just responding to your insults to me in a way that I feel is fitting. Again, I'm sorry you feel insulted. Perhaps you shouldn't be here considering you are capable of dishing out insults you are incapable of taking in response. Perhaps you should check your attitude as well.
Perhaps next time you want to generalize about Christians, you refrain from using the word YOU
Last edited:
It wasn't intended to be an insult. I was pointing something out to you. I don't have a problem with sadomasochism or death worship. That's your business. What I don't like is people being in denial who tend lash out after you point out something that seems rather obvious. Jesus is a human sacrifice and you believe he was tortured to death for your salvation, correct? If you have a different theological view, then my apologies.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
I edited my last post.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
A human sacrifice is: Human sacrifice is the act of killing one or more human beings, usually as an offering to a deity, as part of a ritual.
No one killed Jesus or tortured Jesus for the purpose of offering Him to a deity, as part of any ritual. And so it hardly fits the definition of a "human sacrifice".
"Our sins against God are capital crimes. God Himself is our judge, and according to divine law our crimes deserve the death penalty. Death, in a spiritual sense, means eternal separation from God in unending torment. That's a very serious judgment.
By shedding His blood on the cross, Jesus took the punishment we deserve and offered us His righteousness. When we trust Christ for our salvation, essentially we are making a trade. By faith, we trade our sin and its accompanying death penalty for His righteousness and life.
In theological terms, this is called "substitutionary atonement." Christ died on the cross as our substitute."
http://www.jesus.org/death-and-resurrection/the-crucifixion/how-does-the-death-of-jesus-save.html
You may have an argument for inherently right, but not necessarily for inherently wrong.
You're also not specifying actions that would fit either. Which, I think comes back to the point of you implying, though not outright stating, that it is all subjective, truly.
I think the 'survival instinct' could as easily be shown as the 'killer instinct.' Seems many animals, including us, appear to have such an instinct, and is in essence tied to the 'survival instinct.' Got to kill animal or plant life, in most cases, in order for there to be survival.
So really what I see you getting at is, instead of identifying what is inherently wrong, you are describing what is our inherent nature. But choosing to leave out things, and choosing to not be specific with how our inherent nature (as you've limited it) may lead to inherently right or wrong actions. Because the killer instinct is likely as viable as the survival one, and logically conflicting, then actions themselves are relative to situation the person finds themselves in. And relative to their desires, some of which may be said to 'go against their nature' - i.e. suicide. Though even suicide (actions) could take years to play out via 'bad habits.' Because everyone, ever eventually dies, then arguably all actions are (bad and) leading toward death. I say arguably, because I don't believe this fully, though do partly, as inevitable death (which seemingly all aspects of nature experience) does on the surface of things, appears to trump survival instinct.
Not entirely consistent, but entirely assuming.
Such a definition would mean pranks (that may harm a person, to whatever degree) would be immoral.
Because we could go back and forth on the 'does not, does too' type debate, I'm going to try and break down what I think you are saying based on definition(s) you are choosing to work with.
- "violating moral principles" is I think the primary aspect of this provided definition. Nothing in this definition says anything about harm, consent, or perpetrator's pleasure. These are all things I feel you are assuming are well agreed upon ideas of morality (and/or immorality). For purposes of this thread, they would need to be met with universal agreement to have chance of being inherently right/wrong.
- looking at definition (from this source) of moral, to hopefully help in making case of 'moral principles' - it essentially repeats 'right conduct.' The definitions 1 thru 5 all use the words 'right conduct' without explaining what that is, nor do I think dictionary ought to do that. But does then lead to reasonable conclusion that if one is providing explanation for 'right conduct' (as you have attempted), that ought to be backed up beyond what is currently legal in the world. For even the third definition for moral says:
- founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom
- the 6th definition does actually present an example of moral conduct where it conveys:
- virtuous in sexual matters; chaste
- I am curious what you, or anyone reading this thread thinks of that provided example. Do you think it proper to say being (sexually) chaste is inherently moral?
- looking at definition (from this source) of moral, to hopefully help in making case of 'moral principles' - it essentially repeats 'right conduct.' The definitions 1 thru 5 all use the words 'right conduct' without explaining what that is, nor do I think dictionary ought to do that. But does then lead to reasonable conclusion that if one is providing explanation for 'right conduct' (as you have attempted), that ought to be backed up beyond what is currently legal in the world. For even the third definition for moral says:
- "not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted" is where I see the definition making the case for relative morality.
- basing this primarily on the use of the word "usually" and partially on the words "patterns of conduct"
- the 'conforming' part may actually be the bigger indicator of relative morality, but I am assuming that these rarely, or have never stayed consistent
- like, I'd bring up example of smoking indoors, say in an elevator. In today's world, I could see that being seen as wrong by most people. Thus, conforming to patterns of conduct usually accepted would suggest no one would smoke in such an enclosed space. Yet, maybe 40 years ago, smoking in an elevator would've likely been seen as conforming to pattern of conduct that is usually accepted. Which would mean it was moral then, but immoral now. Same action.
- We could ask then "what changed?" And as I'm very familiar with science and politics around this, I think the debate could get interesting, but me knowing that secondhand smoke 'science' has been debunked wouldn't help the people who might readily agree that 'what's changed' is the science, or what we (allegedly) 'know' happens when people are exposed to second hand smoke. I see the 'what's changed' is strictly political, which in some cases, even where harm is alleged, the idea of conforming could be as simple as normative behavior. Like not dating someone of the same sex, would've at one time been seen as 'the moral thing to do.' Whereas nowadays (in America, at least), it is not seen as immoral. Such that, really anything could be filtered through culture/legal system and with enough instances of it being accepted could establish a pattern whereby it is a generally acceptable conduct, or vice versa, restricted by law and new pattern of conduct emerges.
- Since I am creating wall of text, I may as well work the 'rape of a child' thing in here. When I was younger, I recall people who were not related to me, and who in my mind are (or were) strangers being allowed (by my parents) to come up to me, hug me, and show what I took then and now as their sense of love for me. Yet, sometimes the way in which they hugged me, hurt. When it comes to 'rape of a child' I believe we (adults) are not strictly limiting the action of rape to penetration. That a whole lot of things could constitute rape, and likely would legally. The hug, probably not. Yet, it would fit with being 'immoral' based on definition you wish to go with. The hug was a human act that harmed a person (me). That was done without my consent, and was for the perpetrator's pleasure. I don't see it as rape, but I think it could fit in there. I honestly don't see that as a huge stretch. I also don't think if a child is (allegedly) incapable of consent, that it would necessarily ever be proper for an adult to hug a child, or possibly ever even touch a child.
- I say all this cause to me this is how utterly convoluted the whole 'rape of a child' point gets if looking at it directly rather than just assuming one type of rape action suits all situations. With kids especially, the consent factor is really the bigger issue. There's really no way they could be seen by overwhelming majority of ever consenting to sexual relations. With adults, we like to pretend like we have the whole notion of 'sexual relations' worked out, but I rarely see anyone that demonstrates this. Many guys I know, myself included at one time, would think a female grabbing their arm in a friendly way meant that female was interested in them, and saw that simple action as a come on. I could easily go on, but the point I would make is that arguably all touching of a kid would be inherently violating a child's consent and would be plausibly a form of 'rape.'
- But I'm around 100% sure that most adults don't wish to frame it that way, and instead rather wait till a worst case scenario of rape occurs before we get to place of being emotionally bent out of shape to determine the action to be (inherently) wrong. Whereas I really would love to challenge these notions we don't explore, and that are arguably relatively wrong at the very least. IMO, you can't have it both ways and say kids are inherently incapable of consent, but that we adults at times are okay to touch them.
- Thus the 'conforming to patterns of conduct usually accepted' in this case, similar to the one(s) noted above this, are really adults just basing it on what they think is relatively okay, though not truly certain. And in case of kids, and idea that kids are inherently incapable of consent, then arguably all adults whoever touch a kid (in any fashion) are inherently immoral. I'm sure there are some exceptions to this, but majority of the time, I'd be interested in what type of dance the adult does to get around the notion that they see it as 'perfectly okay.'
- I say all this cause to me this is how utterly convoluted the whole 'rape of a child' point gets if looking at it directly rather than just assuming one type of rape action suits all situations. With kids especially, the consent factor is really the bigger issue. There's really no way they could be seen by overwhelming majority of ever consenting to sexual relations. With adults, we like to pretend like we have the whole notion of 'sexual relations' worked out, but I rarely see anyone that demonstrates this. Many guys I know, myself included at one time, would think a female grabbing their arm in a friendly way meant that female was interested in them, and saw that simple action as a come on. I could easily go on, but the point I would make is that arguably all touching of a kid would be inherently violating a child's consent and would be plausibly a form of 'rape.'
- like, I'd bring up example of smoking indoors, say in an elevator. In today's world, I could see that being seen as wrong by most people. Thus, conforming to patterns of conduct usually accepted would suggest no one would smoke in such an enclosed space. Yet, maybe 40 years ago, smoking in an elevator would've likely been seen as conforming to pattern of conduct that is usually accepted. Which would mean it was moral then, but immoral now. Same action.
- "or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics" is the part of the definition where inherent moral (or immoral) actions could find legs
- if only we could find principles of personal and social ethics that were always consistent, everywhere, all the time.
- seeing that I don't think we can, I believe this part of the definition may be fun to try and argue for inherent right/wrong actions, but I feel confident such a thing will not be presented in this thread.
- for your P1 to be seen as true proposition that aligns with this definition, then my rebuttals in this post, namely pranks and hugging kids would have to be conceded as actions that are inherently immoral.
- Are you willing to go along with that?
- I'm sure I can think of other items that challenge your P1, and will hope you stay consistent with that.
Be clear on moral principles. Realize there will likely be instances that appear to violate the principle in some fashion without necessarily eliminating the desire for the principle to continue being a fundamental moral consideration. IOW, be willing to acknowledge that all moral principles are relative, not inherently right or wrong, not infallible.
Right. For relative morality. In some areas of the globe, homosexual activities (actions) are immoral and criminalized as such. Other places they are not. Would you then concede that this constitutes relative morality for those particular actions. Or are you trying to say that the action is inherently moral in one area, and inherently moral in another, and somehow that makes for 'objective moral fact?'
I don't think that's what you're saying, but gotta double check this stuff periodically. I see you wanting your P1 proposition to be true (in all cases) and as my previous post presented a few instances that challenge this, I just assume keep picking away at it so you do understand that while morality exists as an idea that is apparently intersubjectively shared, there are no truly inherently right or wrong actions.
Could you post / quote where in this thread you saw someone saying 'raping an 8 year old child is okay?'
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Well, you did. If it is not inherently wrong to rape an 8 year old child, then there must be occasions when it is the right thing to do. Or if it is not necessarily a right thing to do on occasion, then rape might not be right or wrong in some occasion. If something is not right or wrong, then who cares if it's done, like no big deal...just an action no one really cares about one way or the other. And that of course is your contribution to humanity.
A) I guess no matter how much I say it is relatively wrong, that won't matter to some.
B) I'll remind you I was a child that was raped.
C) I think with post #389, I'm the only one to provide additional detail on 'children getting rape' beyond the blatant emotional appeal in that assertion. So far, I am playing softball on this issue. Addressing it intellectually. Most of me just assumes it be gone from this thread as a topic, because some adults get so ridiculously bent out of shape over the topic, it is challenging to hold reasonable discussions on it, specifically, or possibly anything else (as they seemingly can't let the emotional stuff go). Lemme know when you've worked through the 'touching a kid without their consent' problem I brought up. I honestly see adults try to dance around that all the time, and often concluding that it is perfectly okay in their mind, so therefore must be perfectly okay. To me, that is literally how that issue shows up 99% of the time. To me, the issue gets way deeper than most wish to ever discuss. Partially because they (children) are us, or all reading this were once them, and arguably still are, but pretend otherwise. And partially cause of how consent works, as if we adults have that worked out to perfection when the evidence is abundantly clear we do not. Which just goes back to how childish we show up when consent is being discussed at a level beyond the superficial considerations and implication without accurate representation.
Do you enjoy lying?
I agree, that would be the case if it is not inherently wrong. I am unaware of instances where a child was actually raped where it was the right thing to do. But have also put forth deeper considerations for the discussion seeing that some adults in this thread wanna not let this go. We'll see how well you hold up to those considerations. Here's hoping you can refrain from lying. Christ won't be too pleased with such deceit as your only guide.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Should I care that you were raped? Ought that sway my opinion about the wrongness of rape?
Do you advocate touching people without their consent? Sometimes we do touch people without their consent. Does that make it right?
Sometimes we have unspoken consent with regard to touching people in certain ways.
And sometimes we assume too much.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
It's going to be hard for you to use my savior against me. I think you assume to much about the one who is not your savior.
Up to you. And probably not.
Very rarely, if ever. Sometimes I do touch people without their explicit consent.
I don't see it as inherently wrong. Nor as harming them in any of the instances that I can think of where I've done it.
Well, there's an interesting idea. I'd love to see that explained.
We have different views of salvation. I assure you I understand Christ as well as you. Perhaps better. Which is why I made the appeal in light of your deceit.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
The other day, without asking, I put my arm around my wife, and told her I loved her. She didn't seemed to mind. It seemed to me that it pleased her.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Rape is inherently wrong, and so I have deceived no one.