[quote]JayPierce wrote:
If it weren’t for God telling us, would we be capable of determining morality for ourselves?[/quote]
sure, it isn’t like people would go around routinely killing their babies or anything.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
If it weren’t for God telling us, would we be capable of determining morality for ourselves?[/quote]
sure, it isn’t like people would go around routinely killing their babies or anything.[/quote]
Not sure if sarcasm?
I guess mainly because I don’t know your viewpoint on abortion.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
As for abortion I have to say until the fetus can support it;s own life I have to leave the decision of whether it has the opportunity of a good life to it’s mother. I do know there are some bad mothers out there but for the most part I believe most mothers have their children’s best interest at heart.
[/quote]
And father, if he is in the picture. If, by some stretch of the wildest imagination, my wife had wanted an abortion, I would have done everything humanly possible to get my child into this world so that I could provide her with the best life possible. She could have gone her own way or whatever, but from the moment of conception, that was my child and I would give my life to defend any of them.
[/quote]
that is a very tough call , I would hope you could find a sympathetic Judge . I know I would try. It is funny how this thing Capitalism works . I would bet if you have the money you could force the situation . I could do it now , I think 
[/quote]
I don’t really know what rights a father has under abortion law, but hopefully he has some sort of say-so in the matter.
Not sure what capitalism has to do with it, other than bribing her to carry to term (which would definitely be an option).
I wouldn’t do anything morally wrong in order to force the issue, either. Two wrongs can’t make a right, but one right can make two wrongs if you’re not cautious.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
If it weren’t for God telling us, would we be capable of determining morality for ourselves?[/quote]
sure, it isn’t like people would go around routinely killing their babies or anything.[/quote]
Not sure if sarcasm?
I guess mainly because I don’t know your viewpoint on abortion.[/quote]
Irrelevant of my or anyone’s view on whether a doctor should legally be allowed to perform the procedure, I find it hard to believe there isn’t a consensus on the fact that when life is removed from a womb due to selective process that involves another human’s interference with natural course it is killing, murder.
In short, yes abortion is killing a baby. Its legality and other peripheral issues are a whole different post.
Pitt,
I would argue that you chose the wrong word to title this thread. You chose “claiming” when I would suggest “exuding.” Anyone can claim anything, but the way they present themselves is more telling of what they are claiming. I have found the most powerful people to be the most humble. The shit talkers are the last to swing…know what I mean ?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
If it weren’t for God telling us, would we be capable of determining morality for ourselves?[/quote]
sure, it isn’t like people would go around routinely killing their babies or anything.[/quote]
Not sure if sarcasm?
I guess mainly because I don’t know your viewpoint on abortion.[/quote]
Irrelevant of my or anyone’s view on whether a doctor should legally be allowed to perform the procedure, I find it hard to believe there isn’t a consensus on the fact that when life is removed from a womb due to selective process that involves another human’s interference with natural course it is killing, murder.
In short, yes abortion is killing a baby. Its legality and other peripheral issues are a whole different post.
[/quote]
Sarcasm it is.
I agree with you 100%.
I still can’t help believe that people would be able to figure out morality for themselves. But in all reality, history proves that hope false and I don’t know exactly why I keep hanging on to it.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I still can’t help believe that people would be able to figure out morality for themselves. But in all reality, history proves that hope false and I don’t know exactly why I keep hanging on to it.[/quote]
I think you believe that because we can, as individuals and small groups. Once the group becomes large problems start to pop up, particularly if it isn’t homogenous group.
Plus the other problem is we are barbaric in nature.
Religion helps facilitate morals, but whether or not people follow them is still up to the individual. Facilitation is crucial though. The organization of people around a central ideal that captures the passion of man makes for a strong civilization. Strong civilizations survive.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I usually stay out of these, but I have to side with Pat on this one. It is, in fact, spelled out for us in detail.
Still, one could ask; What is the basis for morality, the principles at the very core of it? After all, God doesn’t make up rules without reason.
Is it love vs. hate? Generosity vs. selfishness? Indifference vs. passion? All of the above?
If it weren’t for God telling us, would we be capable of determining morality for ourselves?[/quote]
the mere definition of the word Moral is debatable IMO
[/quote]
How so?
Just to make sure we’re on the same page, here; We are talking about the concept of right and wrong as it pertains to human behavior, right?
Or are you really debating the concept of ‘right’?
[/quote]
Are morals stories or the summation of a story or are they the concept of right and wrong?
I have my concept of right and wrong and I Govern my life accordingly. I should have no right to thrust my concepts on you nor should any one have that right to thrust their concepts of right and wrong on me (unless I am harming some one else)
[/quote]
And there the problem lies. I just described how your concept of it does not matter. If your concept of right includes something that is immoral, then it’s still immoral whether you think it’s right or not. You are not the master of morality, your own or anybody elses. It is what it is, and you cannot change it by a sheer act of will.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I think it all boils down to right and wrong. The purpose of the story, or the moral of it, is to convey a particular concept of right or wrong. What my questions were focused on was; What differentiates the two? Especially when we get down to the sticky issues; abortion, gay marriage, etc…
My take on abortion; Is there any love, generosity, or compassion in an abortion? No, most definitely not. As such, I cannot define abortion as ‘good’. Hate? Selfishness? Indifference? Definitely, especially indifference. Therefore, even without a direct statement from God, I absolutely define abortion as evil.
BUT, I also do not believe in pushing my opinions on others, and legal matters are not my realm, so I am concretely undecided as to whether it should be illegal or not. [/quote]
Abortion is one of those issues that will one day go the way of slavery. Everybody already has a varying degree of sense on it’s wrongness. It’s wrong because it takes a human life. It doesn’t make a damn on how anybody feels about that.
Scientifically we know it’s human life. Morally, taking a human life is wrong if not in self defense.
This is a good issue to use as an example when talking about morality.
Anyone who is in favor of having a government and law is claiming moral authority. The only difference is what people think those morals are and what “god” they get them from.
“There is no universal morality - each person gets to determine what morality is for themselves, and other people may not infringe upon that right of self-determination of morality by imposing laws, punishments, etc. that forces someone to stop doing something they don’t personally think is immoral.”
Assuming that is true, that, ironically, is a universal moral law. It provides a rule that extends beyond individual preference that says an individual cannot act a certain way or it is morally offensive, regardless of situation.
So, moral relativists actually do believe in a universal morality, even as they fight to pretend like they don’t.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
IMO there are many examples of individuals claiming some Authority that is not merited. Leading the way is Zeb, Sloth and Sex machine
[/quote]
That list could be extended to include most the population as they don’t want gay marriage or legalised marijuana either.[/quote]
On one of those issues will be decided on by the voters in 3 states and those votes will not include
minors .IMO there are many young people that both smoke pot and are gay that will have no voice (right or wrong)
[/quote]
You want to extend voting rights to children now?[/quote]
The left has always wanted to extend suffrage with no consideration of ability to make thought out decisions.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“There is no universal morality - each person gets to determine what morality is for themselves, and other people may not infringe upon that right of self-determination of morality by imposing laws, punishments, etc. that forces someone to stop doing something they don’t personally think is immoral.”
Assuming that is true, that, ironically, is a universal moral law. It provides a rule that extends beyond individual preference that says an individual cannot act a certain way or it is morally offensive, regardless of situation.
So, moral relativists actually do believe in a universal morality, even as they fight to pretend like they don’t.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter in the end because they are wrong. It’s totally an unsupportable argument, it has no basis in fact what so ever, but that doesn’t stop people.
People will believe anything to suite their own purposes, right or wrong doesn’t matter…
I can already hear what’s coming next.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
you have successfully stated you opinion. And I disagree with your opinion .
If what you stated was fact than morals would never change . It would still be immoral to marry outside you faith or outside your race or remarry if divorced , It would be immoral to work on Sunday or Saturday which ever you subscribe . It would immoral to eat cloven hoofed animals
[/quote]
Wait, what has changed?
It was never immoral to marry outside your faith or race, and it has always been immoral to divorce. It is still immoral to work on the Sabbath.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Some seem to think that science will carry the torch. Maybe. But science is only capable of some illumination. Moral fiber is still the key.[/quote]
Science is extremely limited in scope and can’t tell us what we ought to do. It’s merely a collection of methodologies used to discover particular types of knowledge.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
…It is still immoral to work on the Sabbath.
[/quote]
I didn’t know you were now a Seventh Day Adventist. When did this happen?
[/quote]
Nope, Catholic. Sundays are family days/days of rest. There is room for needed work, but the Sabbath was made for man to rest not to work. So no needless work should be done on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation. I have today off being it is a Holy Day of obligation.
Plus Adventists think the Sabbath is on Saturday.