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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can you learn from trial and error when you have no basis for knowing what action is wrong and which right. You are simply redefining morality as you wish it to mean. You are probably using some kind of human flourishing foundation which you can't possibly know is true. It is actual a form of species that is just as immoral as racism would be. No mater what kind of arbitrary standard you are inventing for morality and no matter what language you are trying to cloth fantasy it would all be on one side of an equality with opinion and preference on the other side. You have said nothing about morality, you have only given estimation about an arbitrary system of ethics.
Says the person who agrees we should deny the right to life in the womb by the hundreds of millions and basis it on a supposed right you demand for yourself but you deny to those that are killed.
Those religions are adding far more people to their ranks than they are loosing. What the heck are you talking about? Those faiths include more that 1 out of every 2 people on Earth and all three are growing.
Actually they are the state of moral philosophy today. I did not get one word in my claim from the Bible or the Quran. BTW it is very easy to prove me wrong. Simply supply the criteria which are capable of accurately judging God.
I did not mention anything that can be extrapolated to a human. Will you stick to what I says and quit distorting it into something you mistakenly think you have a better chance of countering. I was discussing what God does not what a human does. Their is a slight difference between the two.
I did not say anything about other God's. Are you sure you even talking to me?
Then it would be the height of psychotic moral insanity to deny that God can do so but humans have some sacred right to do so.
Please supply links to these claims. Conquistador literature went through several stages. It was accurately recorded by people who were there in most cases at one time. Soon after conquistadors became lionized and were claimed to have done all sorts of brave and noble deeds by amplifying what actually occurred. Then it became fashionable to denounce them as barbarian conquerors for a period of time based on garbage that never took place. It appears at least most of your sources came from this third and least accurate period.
You keep typing things that do not appear in any of the most reliable and exhaustive sources on Cortez. Why should I believe them. I need sources.
That is not even a little bit true.
Partially true. This event was the result of constant harassment and betrayal by several tribes. He invited all their chiefs to a meeting and had them all killed as a military necessity. You must also evaluate Cortez in the context of his mission and role. He was a military commander who was commanded to win above all else. That does not make his actions moral but they do explain them in ways other than sheer brutality for it's own sake.
Not true at all. The forces were sent by the Governor of Cuba which Cortez had personally offended in some way. It was not the mission of the Church nor of the crowns instigation. It was petty battle of insults and greed. Cortez did no great slaughter to any Spanish force. He couldn't he had less than 200 men. He rode straight into the commanders quarters and either killed or captured him. He then made a speech that appealed to greed and the entire force joined him voluntarily. There was no slaughter of any kind involved.
No he did not. He lived in a palace supplied by Montezuma on his entrance. Much later he was driven out by massed crowds and lost many men at night. It is called La Noche Triste (sad night). He literally sat under a tree and wept for hours over his men. After he recovered and after savage battles he demolished the city block by block because it was used for cover by the Aztec's attacking him. Your confusing an act of military necessity with barbarity. He later spent money from his own estate to rebuild the city.
This one is complete garbage.
I am quite sure sexual advantage was taken at times. There however was never any systematic sex slave events that ever occurred.
He defended the Aztec's against the crown, He rebuilt Tenochtitlan from his own pocket. He stopped abuses by later Spanish dignitaries. The most accurate way to describe Cortez is as follows:
Cortez's men killed less than 5000 people al together. It was the enemies of Montezuma that had been prayed on by him for decades that did almost all the killing and almost al the brutality. They took the opportunity for revenge that is unimaginable when they saw the Spaniards could possibly stand up to him. An educated guess would be that the Aztec's killed hundreds of thousands of their neighbors, Cortez and his men killed less than 5000 people all together. Mexican tribes abused by the Aztec's killed maybe a hundred thousand Aztec's. Small pox killed tens of millions. Your data is absurdly inaccurate. Cortez never had more than two dozen horses and a thousand men. It is physically impossible for him to do any thing like you claim.
Churchill actually proposed assassinating Hitler in 37' I believe. As usual the more liberals knew better and lacked moral fortitude and it cost 50 million lives.
By what criteria do the ants tell Newton how he should do calculus? If God steers everyone in whatever path you think is optimal then freewill is an illusion. This is yet another example of a false optimization fallacy. God was aware of what Hitler would have done, on what basis is his taking back the life he granted unjustified given that knowledge?
Rights can not be given if they are not possessed by the giver. Governments do not have a warehouse full of rights to distribute. Rights are things we are endowed with by our creator governments are not supposed to take away. They apparently think they have a warehouse full of other peoples money and are lately taking rights as fast as possible but they do not have the capacity to grant them. Government is an idea, it is actually composed of people. Which person's opinion is a better source of rights than God who actually can endow them?
So you consider freewill evil? If you desire freewill then evil is a necessary derivative. I would rather have freewill in a world where it is abused than to be an automaton without choice in a world populated by robots. Love necessitates freewill. Liberals necessitate taking it away. Quit smuggling in Godly standards and criteria in a bizarre attempt to exclude God.
God has forbidden rape. That is his only responsibility. Are you trying God by a races laws so corrupt we systematically kill ourselves on an industrial scale? Which man? Which law? Why do they bind God? Rape is not even actually wrong unless God exists in the first place. Natural law cannot tell us what should be done, only what is being done.
Let me state the argument as it exists today if you wish to discuss it.
I am not discussing my morality. I am discussing morality in general.
If god says something is moral, and does the opposite, then he is not acting morally.
How and why would you consider gods action in that instance to be a moral one? Because he says it is? That is not morality.
Well lets see, because the people he supposedly sent to cure this immorality were just as bad, if not worse, than the sinners they were sent to fix.