Theists, please tell me why you believe murder is wrong.

[syo]

how you know this.

My husband told me.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You know this how?

My daughter and I made a pack shortly before she died to test the possibility. She told me she'd haunt me after she died if it was possible. 16 years and no sign of a haunt.

I’m sorry you lost your daughter.

Do I have permission to quote your post later, possibly on another site?
Because to me, this raises up issues that have some very enlightening & important implications.

If I may ask, if an unseen entity did make its presence known directly, acting like your daughter….ie., sounding like your daughter, & revealing information that only you and her knew about… honestly, how would you react?

It would be compelling! You’d probably rethink your worldview.
But from my understanding it would be wise for you to still remain skeptical.

i don’t mean to sound cryptic… I will elaborate, if you’d like.

 

[SalixIncendium]

My husband told me.

Explains much. Thanks.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I’m sorry you lost your daughter.

Do I have permission to quote your post later, possibly on another site?
Because to me, this raises up issues that have some very enlightening & important implications.

Certainly.

If I may ask, if an unseen entity did make its presence known directly, acting like your daughter….ie., sounding like your daughter, & revealing information that only you and her knew about… honestly, how would you react?

If you're suggesting that it would be someone other than her, I'll be honest. I may be fooled at first, but my daughter and I were very close, and grew closer in her waning days. If it was someone other than her, it would be revealed...quite possibly base on their knowledge of "Friends," specifically in a round of Scene It.

It would be compelling! You’d probably rethink your worldview.
But from my understanding it would be wise for you to still remain skeptical.

i don’t mean to sound cryptic… I will elaborate, if you’d like.

No need. I understand your line of reasoning. I am, after all, a former Catholic.

 

[F1fan]

This was clearly a fundie wacko. I've never met a Christian that thought this way.

Oh yeah. I’ve only encountered the one. There’s quite a few wackos out there of varying degrees. Let’s not forget that there are hard line Muslims that will execute people for what they believe offends God.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Oh yeah. I’ve only encountered the one. There’s quite a few wackos out there of varying degrees. Let’s not forget that there are hard line Muslims that will execute people for what they believe offends God.

Of course.

And moreover, you'll especially need to be on the lookout for those hard line Hindus!

They won't execute anyone, but they might inspire you to understand your own nature and the nature of the reality in which you live.

 

[EconGuy]

God's will could be anything it wants

If that's true, moral actions are the same as saying, "what god commands". Correct? I mean, you place the qualifier:

IF it wants a material world

But why would god want such a thing?

And if morals are just what god commands, then morals have nothing to do with human experience.

Thoughts?

 

[EconGuy]

Very hard question to answer. Because that's true my belief in them does affect my actions. I may do actions for then in order to honor them. Like im very big on sexual freedom due to honoring Lilith and Bastet. I can be very chaotic and move towards being big on jokes cuz of Loki. But im very much move towards balance cuz i honor Bastet a goddess of order.

Keeping on topic, how do your beliefs effect questions of morality?

 

[Viker]

In my religion (I'm a theist as well), any action against another without their consent is considered an inappropriate act as all are sanctum. My religion, still, does not have "thou shall not kill". It's more like "if you should/must kill then..."

Our definition of consent would be what you would think. But it also includes defensive/survival clauses, so to speak. In other words, if you harm or kill another in a legitimate defense/survival situation, it is acceptable. An attacker has consented. They've invited your deed into their sanctum.

Killing an animal for food is acceptable as long as consideration and respect is given to the creature. This area is sort of tricky in our ethical/moral codification. And occasionally leads to non-heated debate in our ranks (between vegans and omnivores, of course).

Murder is frowned upon.

 

[dybmh]

If there are things that are "completely and always wrong," it logically follows that objective morality must exist.

I am leaving myself the opportunity to be wrong, because, I am not God. So, I cannot claim objective morality. But, I can still do my best, and my best judgement is that there are at least 2 things, maybe three which are always and forever completely wrong.

Sometimes, our worldviews contain paradoxes and that's fine.

Agreed.

Interestingly, where you find "just some human said so" repugnant and dangerous, I find absolutist decrees like yours to be the problematic ones. Moral absolutism begets extremism - a dogmatic inflexibility that is incapable of adapting to alternative perspectives or situations.

I agree. Which is why I am not rigid about my flexibility. If a person is rigidly dogmatic about being always and forever flexibile... that's an extreme in itself, and the same paradox presents itself in reverse. What was intended to be flexible has become rigid.

Not being rigid about flexibility is the best of both worlds. I am rigid when needed in the extremes, but flexible when needed in all other circumstances.

Invariably, different humans with these absolutist extremes will hold to different notions of what is right and wrong, setting up an inevitable collision between peoples

OK. Maybe you can help me? What is productive, helpful, useful about wrath? ( not justice ) It is purely selfish, I cannot imagine anything at all good coming from it. There is no reason to avoid annihilating a person's existence, and instead torture them endlessly, force them to witness their children and pets being tortured, also endlessly, all because they knocked over your favorite blue spruce.

Same question for vain-glory. It's completely false. What good can come from it? This isn't fake it till you make it. This is pretending something that they're not, and if it is ever put to the test, it collapses. Something we see in the religious debates forum.

Adaptation is important.

Naturally. But the roots of the tradition are not being annilihilated.

 

[VoidCat]

Keeping on topic, how do your beliefs effect questions of morality?

Gods are imperfect. So are humans. None are perfect. So I have to thunk a little harder knowing this on what I find to be moral or not what are good values or not. Some values I feel line up with mine that my gods/goddesses hold. So I may strive to accumulate that value in my life which indirectly affects how I respond morally to things.

 

[dybmh]

In my religion (I'm a theist as well), any action against another without their consent is considered an inappropriate act as all are sanctum. My religion, still, does not have "thou shall not kill". It's more like "if you should/must kill then..."

Our definition of consent would be what you would think. But it also includes defensive/survival clauses, so to speak. In other words, if you harm or kill another in a legitimate defense/survival situation, it is acceptable. An attacker has consented. They've invited your deed into their sanctum.

Killing an animal for food is acceptable as long as consideration and respect is given to the creature. This area is sort of tricky in our ethical/moral codification. And occasionally leads to non-heated debate in our ranks (between vegans and omnivores, of course).

Murder is frowned upon.

How do you define **informed** consent? How can someone consent, if they do not know what is going to happen to them when action is taken against them? Does your religion communicate this to their target? Or is it more kind of... word-play... get them to sign, but it doesn't matter if it is a coerced or ignorant version of consent?

 

[F1fan]

Of course.

And moreover, you'll especially need to be on the lookout for those hard line Hindus!

I have a friend who is a hard line Hindu. She’s vegetarian.

They won't execute anyone, but they might inspire you to understand your own nature and the nature of the reality in which you live.

Hindus tend to be more in tune as theists go.

 

[dybmh]

Why only theists?

Because atheism is simple and boring.

 

[dybmh]

@F1fan ,

I didn't see any reply to my question whether or not you were being honest when you made that claim about what some Christian said?

Note: "Philosophy" is a debate forum.

 

[JustGeorge]

Because atheism is simple and boring.

I think I'd get bored being an atheist, but I have to respect the opinions of atheists and agnostics that find religion to be dreadfully dull.

We're all put together very differently, so what appeals to one may not appeal to all.

 

[Viker]

How do you define **informed** consent? How can someone consent, if they do not know what is going to happen to them when action is taken against them? Does your religion communicate this to their target? Or is it more kind of... word-play... get them to sign, but it doesn't matter if it is a coerced or ignorant version of consent?

Imagine someone coming at you with an axe, you fell them with a knife, they perish of course. They invited/consented to any consequence from their actions. If they had succeeded in killing you then likely they invited upon themselves a lengthy prison stint.

The attacker should be, if possible, warned that you have a weapon, letting them know there will likely be an immediate harsh consequence for their axe welding rage.

 

[dybmh]

@VoidCat ,

You're asking good questions. I need to step away for bit. But I promise I'll answer all of your questions to the best of my ability in private.

 

[dybmh]

Imagine someone coming at you with an axe, you fell them with a knife, they perish of course. They invited/consented to any consequence from their actions. If they had succeeded in killing you then likely they invited upon themselves a lengthy prison stint.

The attacker should be, if possible, warned that you have a weapon, letting them know there will likely be an immediate harsh consequence for their axe welding rage.

Ohhhhh that's self-defense. Clear and present danger? No problem-o. Nothing outside of that then?

 

[VoidCat]

@VoidCat ,

You're asking good questions. I need to step away for bit. But I promise I'll answer all of your questions to the best of my ability in private.

Alright. My pms are open