Scripture not needed for morality or ethics apparently

[rikuoamero]

In a thread in the Science sub forum, J P Cusick said the following

I do not claim that Einstein was some Prophet or Priest of God - certainly not - as I see him as a spineless and immoral jerk - and the reason he did so well in science is because he gained huge insight from the scriptures - and that was smart of him to do.

This has me thinking. Apparently, Einstein read Scripture, and had a high level of understanding, more so than your average person. Why, according to J P, he attributed his theory of relativity to Genesis (please ignore the fact that not once in his life did Einstein ever come close to even saying that).
So...we have a smart man, who has the holy scriptures of Judaeo/Christianity, and who has a high level of understanding of them...and yet, he is spineless, and an immoral jerk (so far, J P has not said WHY he says that).
So...are Scriptures actually necessary for morality? Looks like it's not. Surely J P will agree with me in that they seem to be entirely superfluous.

[KenRU]

But when we judge murder as being either "good or as bad" then the dynamic changes, because if I want to murder the person than that would be viewed as good to murder,

No, this is completely a false use of the word Good.

The only way Good can be used in this context is if you say getting what you want is good. But that is only in the loosest sense of the definition.

Once again, you are changing definitions to suit your bias.

In any event, the words are subjective, depending on context: Someone steals food for their family because they are destitute. But they get caught. The right thing to do is to punish them for their crime, because we can't have the poor thinking that just because you are poor you can get away with stealing. That would cause anarchy. But the good thing to do is to help them.

Conversely, I can also argue that it is the Wrong thing to do to punish the thief because he only committed the crime because he is unable to feed his family and, therefore, it would be a Bad thing to send him to jail because it hurts his family.

Right and Wrong (as you see above) are just as subjective as Good and Bad.

but I do not want to go to jail for the murder as that would be bad, but if I could murder and get away from the police then that would be good again,

No, it wouldn't. Please illustrate how this can be defined as good.

and then we can justify murder based on "good or bad" because in the military we murder people who are called the enemy, or we can murder convicted criminals because that is not bad, and so it is a judgment of value and quality instead of right from wrong.

It is easy to implode your logic here.

I can easily make an argument that to kill while in the military is both good (to defend your country and family) and bad (violence begets violence), and both right (following orders, it is what you signed up for) and wrong (to take a life).

You seem to be making an argument against your own point.

[JP Cusick]

Well it wasn't good enough since it doesn't explain why.

I do hope that everyone reading can see the irony that the person above uses the terminology of "good" to declare the value and quality, but does not judge the accuracy or truth as in right from wrong.

As such this sentence quoted above is an exact example of the poisoned knowledge in action.

For those who can see.

But you can, and should, layout your own reasoning so I can follow what you are thinking step by step. You are still not doing that.

I might do that if talking to a 5 year old, but not between adults.

My thinking belongs in my own brain, and your thinking is to be in your own brain, and I have no intention of having my thinking entangled with yours.

You have to make the effort to distinguish between "right and wrong" from "good and bad" in your own mind.

I can not explain how it is done in your own mind when you do not do it for your self.

But why do you think "you look good" and "you look right" has entirely different meaning?

I say that is because I really do have morals and principles which I actually follow, and as such the distinction is very obvious to me.

Now I find that any person who lacks the proper morality based on proven standards then they simple can not fathom the deeper messages of God as in this one.

This kind of message is for those people who are trying or seeking to do right, and so it must be just confusion to those who are rebellious.

Since you can not comprehend the distinction, then I am going to stop badgering you with it.

Why would murder switch from bad to good if you want to murder someone?! Or if you won't get caught?!

This happens very often, which is why there is a lot of murders and lots of murderers, because some people decide that it is in their own better interest (saw it as good) and thereby committed murder.

Whether every one of them were caught and prosecuted or not is irrelevant to the fact that the poisoned knowledge over ruled their conscience about right or wrong.

If otherwise then our prison industry would be much less populated and the crime rates would be reduced.

[JP Cusick]

No, this is completely a false use of the word Good.

The only way Good can be used in this context is if you say getting what you want is good. But that is only in the loosest sense of the definition.

Once again, you are changing definitions to suit your bias.

In any event, the words are subjective, depending on context: Someone steals food for their family because they are destitute. But they get caught. The right thing to do is to punish them for their crime, because we can't have the poor thinking that just because you are poor you can get away with stealing. That would cause anarchy. But the good thing to do is to help them.

Conversely, I can also argue that it is the Wrong thing to do to punish the thief because he only committed the crime because he is unable to feed his family and, therefore, it would be a Bad thing to send him to jail because it hurts his family.

Right and Wrong (as you see above) are just as subjective as Good and Bad.

No, it wouldn't. Please illustrate how this can be defined as good.

It is easy to implode your logic here.

I can easily make an argument that to kill while in the military is both good (to defend your country and family) and bad (violence begets violence), and both right (following orders, it is what you signed up for) and wrong (to take a life).

You seem to be making an argument against your own point.

Yes - all of this is correct based on the poisoned knowledge.

If you removed the poisoned knowledge from that comment then the judgments would be changed significantly.

That is the point.

The poisoned knowledge changes "right and wrong" into perversions.

[KenRU]

No, this is completely a false use of the word Good.

The only way Good can be used in this context is if you say getting what you want is good. But that is only in the loosest sense of the definition.

Once again, you are changing definitions to suit your bias.

In any event, the words are subjective, depending on context: Someone steals food for their family because they are destitute. But they get caught. The right thing to do is to punish them for their crime, because we can't have the poor thinking that just because you are poor you can get away with stealing. That would cause anarchy. But the good thing to do is to help them.

Conversely, I can also argue that it is the Wrong thing to do to punish the thief because he only committed the crime because he is unable to feed his family and, therefore, it would be a Bad thing to send him to jail because it hurts his family.

Right and Wrong (as you see above) are just as subjective as Good and Bad.

No, it wouldn't. Please illustrate how this can be defined as good.

It is easy to implode your logic here.

I can easily make an argument that to kill while in the military is both good (to defend your country and family) and bad (violence begets violence), and both right (following orders, it is what you signed up for) and wrong (to take a life).

You seem to be making an argument against your own point.

Yes - all of this is correct based on the poisoned knowledge.

If you removed the poisoned knowledge from that comment then the judgments would be changed significantly.

That is the point.

The poisoned knowledge changes "right and wrong" into perversions.

"Poisoned knowledge" might mean something to you, but not to many other people. And it certainly means nothing to me. Please show the fault (if any) in my example above. Am I using any words incorrectly? I don't think so. And if I am, it should be quite easy for you to show my error.

If you can't, (and all you have is "the dictionary is wrong") then I have successfully shown that Right and Wrong are just as subjective as Good and Bad.

The ball is in your court.

[JP Cusick]

The ball is in your court.

I am not going to badger that message to the likes of you any more, and I stand by everything that I said. and all of my comments are accurate and true, and other people denying and stubbornness is no real concern of mine.

You may indeed view thy self as the winner (the WINNER) because I know these discussions are viewed as a competition to many people, but I do not share that view.

[KenRU]

The ball is in your court.

I am not going to badger that message to the likes of you any more,

The likes of me? Please, elaborate what that actually means. If it is an insult, do not hide behind vagaries. If not, then say what you mean.

and I stand by everything that I said.

Well bully for you. Except this is a debate forum. And if you have nothing more than an argument that the dictionary is wrong and that I'm using "Poisoned Knowledge", then maybe this isn't the forum for those kind of assertions.

and all of my comments are accurate and true,

Funny, so are mine. Now what?

and other people denying and stubbornness is no real concern of mineWhat did I deny? Seems you are the only one denying something here (that the dictionary is accurate).

You may indeed view thy self as the winner

I didn't, but if the best you have is "all of my comments are accurate and true" and you're using "Poisoned Knowledge" then why shouldn't I? Those aren't much of an argument.

(the WINNER) because I know these discussions are viewed as a competition to many people, but I do not share that view.

True, I used a sports metaphor, but that doesn't mean I viewed this as a competition - I didn't. I found your opinion that Right and Wrong are not subjective questionable at best. I gave you examples of why I thought so, and to date, your best arguments are 1) you're using "Poisoned Knowledge" and 2) "all of my comments are accurate and true".

Did I miss anything? That isn't a debate. That's called preaching.

Seems if anyone has the right to be miffed here its me. But what does someone the "likes" of me know, right?