The Contradiction of Morality from Christianity's God

[rikuoamero]

I have a moral code, one that has taken me my entire life to cobble together, and I will be changing it as I continue to live my life, as I experience life and learn new things, and consider fresh perspectives on old ideas.

According to Christians and Christianity, God is the author of morality, or the source of morality or some such similar claim or words to that effect. However, there's a problem: my moral code. My moral code prohibits me from bowing down and worshipping bloodthirsty tyrannical warlords, which is what God supposedly is, according to the Old Testament.
The conundrum I face regarding Christianity is that from where I'm sitting, the religion is demanding that I compromise on my morality, when a real god (at least my own view of what a real god would do) would not do such a thing. The religion demands that either I discard my moral code, or that my moral code (among which is the non-worship of warlords)...is from this God, who demands I worship him?

So questions for discussion: Are our moral codes, even on an individual level, given to us/written on our hearts/preloaded onto us by God?
Does Christianity demand that one discard their moral code, even if not 100% explicitly?

[ttruscott]

No. Rape and murder are always wrong. Under no circumstances would rape or murder not be wrong.

Exactly!!

But not all homicide is murder! The death of another person is not murder if it is by accident or misadventure (ie no mens rea), an act of self defence against their attempt to do murder or as an act of execution ordered by a legally authorized Judge.

[marco]

No. Rape and murder are always wrong. Under no circumstances would rape or murder not be wrong.

Exactly!!

One might want to describe certain acts as always wrong, but the application of moral judgment involves examining the situation. We don't have some objective standard by which we can say an act is always and everywhere wrong. An examination of motivation, age, and responsibility might allow us to conclude that no crime took place and so we do not attach blame to the act. It would be nice if morality came pre-packed. It doesn't.

The criminal justice system would be easier to administer if we had some objective moraily, perhaps issued by God. We don't. An act that is wrong today may be right tomorrow or in another place with other people.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

One might want to describe certain acts as always wrong, but the application of moral judgment involves examining the situation. We don't have some objective standard by which we can say an act is always and everywhere wrong. An examination of motivation, age, and responsibility might allow us to conclude that no crime took place and so we do not attach blame to the act. It would be nice if morality came pre-packed. It doesn't.

So, please explain to me how rape is not always wrong. In what kind of example/case would the wrongness of rape depend on age, motivation, or responsibility? Why is it so hard for some to admit the absolute immorality even of rape? Please give me an example where rape would not be immoral.

The criminal justice system would be easier to administer if we had some objective moraily

We do. It’s called reason/logic via observation and acknowledgment of the world we live in and man’s relationship to this world.

perhaps issued by God. We don't.

Well, we actually do, however one need not acknowledge God to know that which is right and that which is wrong.

An act that is wrong today may be right tomorrow or in another place with other people.

Poppycock! Truth is absolute. It is illogical to suggest otherwise.

Joe: There is no such thing as truth.
John: Is that true?

[Elijah John]

An act that is wrong today may be right tomorrow or in another place with other people.

Poppycock! Truth is absolute. It is illogical to suggest otherwise.

So then. It was OK to keep and beat slaves half to death back in the days of Moses? And now it's not?

Which is it? Was slave keeping and beating always wrong, or always right?

[marco]

So, please explain to me how rape is not always wrong. In what kind of example/case would the wrongness of rape depend on age, motivation, or responsibility? Why is it so hard for some to admit the absolute immorality even of rape? Please give me an example where rape would not be immoral.

In Euclidean geometry we can name a theorem that justifies our conclusion. It is wrong to suppose we have a list of "wrongs" which will invariably be called "wrong". In general it is easy to find circumstances where, on examination, what seemed wrong turns out to be correct; a lie may not be wrong, but a life-saver. In order to preserve some vestige of justification for objective morality, one is forced to look at extreme situations. But of course it is incorrect to frame our moral theory by reference to the extreme or exceptional case.

But you challenge me to explain how, even in the extreme case of rape, there is no guiding moral principle for us that defines the deed as wrong or sinful or criminal. One ingredient in the judging of an act is whether there was something deliberate in it; what has happened by accident is not termed wrong, just unfortunate. And it is easy to see that someone who is incarcerated as mentally sick might violently attack another inmate. The wrongness of the act depends on responsibility and intention. It is as futile to label the act wrong as it would be if a bear attacked the victim. The same amount of morality or immorality is involved.

We do. It’s called reason/logic via observation and acknowledgment of the world we live in and man’s relationship to this world.

This is a contradiction. If we have an objective moral standard, we don't need reason to apply it; it is axiomatically true. We can label lying wrong but then we discover it may NOT be wwrong. There is NO objective standard, just human judgment, and what was seen as wrong yesterday may be right tomorrow. Homosexuality was once seen as so bad that homosexual people were killed. Such was the application of some objective standard of morality.

An act that is wrong today may be right tomorrow or in another place with other people.

Poppycock! Truth is absolute. It is illogical to suggest otherwise.

Even in mathematics I would hesitate to speak with such assured certainty. I have given instances where something that was wrong become right, given the circumstances. Judgement, not some predetermined standard, is involved in making moral decisions. Judgment is based on people living with people and making up rules that lead to a harmonious existence. We have evolved from killing our neighbour to living peacefully with them. It is done in self interest.

I believe I have argued logically.

Joe: There is no such thing as truth.
John: Is that true?

This is a semantic conundrum. We are in Bertrand Russell territory, and we are not discussing morality.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 20 by RightReason]

Just for clarification's sake, I am not going to answer each line in distinct order. I'm going to be basically hopping to and fro, just in case you were wondering.

I can name thousands. Here are 3 -- Sgt. Henry Gunther, Corporal Francis P. Bergen. 2nd Lt. Ernest Holden, but you can do a simple Google search to find countless parents who took the lives of others in order to protect their children.

You have twisted what I was asking for. A parent shooting dead a home intruder (taking the life) is not what I was asking for.
I asked for the names of people who, in their capacity as parents
1) conquered other lands
2) killed large numbers of people
The three names you gave me are (according to Google) among the last US soldiers killed in World War 1. That was not a war of conquest by the US.
My understanding is that people conquer other lands and kill loads of other people out of a lust for power, for land, hatred or fear of others. I'm not aware of someone who thinks to himself "I'm afraid for the safety of my little Suzy, so I'm going to conquer and take over other countries, even if it means killing hundreds of thousands".

Well, you could at least admit the rightness or wrongness of something is not based on feelings/opinion. Could you at least agree rape is wrong and the wrongness of it does not change on whether Joe Smith thinks/believes it is wrong?

I can agree with you that I view rape as a moral wrong, but I'm not going to do as what you demand and say I view it as a moral wrong above anyone's opinion.

And please tell me you aren’t going to somehow suggest that because there was slavery in Biblical times, it was under full approval of God. Due to man’s hardness of hearts, God has permitted certain evils – this in no way is endorsement.

According to the OT, God didn't just permit it, he crafted laws for it. Anyway, this is more or less the disagreement I have with Christians and Christianity - they point to a God whom they say is the source of their morality, and yet here, you say your God permits (or as I say, commands for) something that you have said you view as immoral.
How can what you say is the source of your morality allow for or command for, immorality?

You seriously believe that the wrongness of rape is a matter of opinion and if someone does not think it is wrong, then it is right for him and he is not bound to live according to the moral order?

You're putting words in my mouth. I think it would be great if all people could agree that rape is wrong, but at the end of the day, I recognise that such a thing would be nothing more than all people having the same opinion.

Of course you do.

No I do not. I do not act as if believe or know the world to be 'ordered/designed". I ask you to retract this. If you do not, then you are arguing against a strawman of your own creation, and not responding to what I actually say.

Do you believe the purpose of our digestive system is to digest food, which turns food into energy which enables us live and therefore you eat everyday?

Was my digestive system designed by someone or something with grander intelligence than I? If so, please explain why I am now lactose intolerant, compared to when I was younger when I was not. Milk is a great way to obtain calcium, as well as being used in other dishes such as soups, but now I cannot eat them.
If this really is design, then it's sloppy design.

Would you ever attempt to stick food into your ear in order to get the energy you need to live? Of course not – you respect the design/order of the world we live in and act accordingly.

I don't stick food in my ear, not out of a "respect for the design/order", but simply because the ear has no ability to digest food. Where is the connection between these two?

Huh? What is the difference?

You changed the intended meaning of the word "right", without being clear for readers. Other people might have accused you of an equivocation fallacy, but I won't.

Not at all. I’m saying if Truth exists, then two people believing two different things cannot both be right/correct. One of the beliefs (or perhaps both) is logically wrong/incorrect. They cannot both be true. The fact that we differ in what we think is true does not negate truth.

And if a person does not believe rape to be bad were to come along...? Is that person automatically wrong, and you right?

Well, I thought your original post said it was your bowl, in which case you have the right to say what you would like it to be used for.

Apologies for not being clear. In the bowl hypothetical, consider the property ownership of the bowl to be moot. All I want to focus on is the claim from you that doing something other than the intended purpose for a thing is somehow immoral.

if you were just making some general statement that all bowls should only be used for cereal, that would be simply your opinion, not logical, and of course something to which I could argue a bowl can have multiple purposes.

If I give you a bowl, but I state it is only for breakfast cereal, is it immoral of you to use that bowl for other purposes?

Human reason could easily conclude that said bowl can have several purposes. I think, however it would be very difficult to suggest the purpose of a bowl could be to fertilize an egg. A bowl, in fact, could not fertilize an egg.

Where I have suggested anything like that? I have not suggested that one can give a purpose to an object that it is simply incapable of doing. An ear cannot digest food, nor a bowl impregnate. Why are you saying such quite honestly daft things?

Not at all. See my response above. The purpose of the bowl would be to hold something/contain something/carry something. We can conclude this via the shape/form of the bowl. The bowl would help me very little in helping my body receive oxygen, or aiding my body in its digestion of food, or helping me see better. However, it acts as a great container in which to hold something. Again, it really isn’t rocket science.

So when it comes to morality in the usage of a thing, the morality of using a thing as one see's fit basically boils down to whether or not the person who made the object bothers to open their mouth and say what their intended purpose is?
Just to be clear, in which of the two scenarios is RightReason doing something immoral
A) Rikuoamero makes a bowl, says nothing about an intended purpose, but RightReason uses the bowl for his own purpose, for example, storing his dead uncle's ashes
B) Rikuoamero makes a bowl, says it is for the purpose of eating breakfast cereal out of, but RightReason uses it to store his dead uncle's ashes.

Well, said female partner would have had to have had a previous partner who was infected for the man to have gotten some disease from her, which only makes my case.

The man in this case was only following what you believe God intended - the woman may have had other partners in the past, but the man didn't. So how does it follow that a man having relations with one woman (perhaps the two marry, perhaps the woman doesn't tell him of her other partners), and the man getting a venereal disease, is a result of his "immoral choices"?

Even if venereal disease was not a threat, there is tons of sociological evidence showing the emotional/psychological problems with “sleeping around�. The social sciences show this to particularly true for women/girls, but for all human beings. Loneliness, insecurity, low self-esteem, are some of the psychological effects the social science research sees when studying promiscuity.

Then why not focus on these problems, instead of having led by talking about STIs?

Yes, drunkenness is immoral. It is not in man’s best interest. It adversely affects one’s health, one’s relationships, one’s work, one’s family, and one’s overall well being. Is this something you are unaware of?

Even just the one time? What if I live in a cabin out in the middle of nowhere, and I've got a twelve pack. Is it immoral of me to get drunk?

Uuumm . . . yes, taking the life of an innocent human being is immoral.

And is this, along with all the other things you've been talking about, something other than your opinion of what is immoral?

They are violations of the natural order because all human beings have the right to life.

If all humans have a right to life, then your God violates this right when he kills, or commands killing.

Huh? It is almost impossible to have too much water.

Ever hear of drowning?

The moral law is for human beings.

So then God and morality have nothing to do with one another, I take it? This is me only following the chain of logic where you start it.

So why in the world would God, who is divine (supernatural) be judged according to the moral law?

Because he is, according to you, the source of (your) morality. It makes no sense to me to be saying one gets their morality from some other being, and yet that other being violates or does things at odds with that morality. It's like a parent saying to a child "Don't smoke, it's bad for you", all the while with a lit cigarette hanging from their lips.

Again demonstrating freedom comes in choosing that which is right/good. The officer does not drive your car for you. He does not control your gas or breaks. He allows you that control/freedom. The choice is yours. But make no mistake – our actions have consequences.

The consequences being what that cop does. The cop makes a deliberate action - he will pull you over if you speed and arrest you. This is not equivalent to say driving over the edge of a cliff. That is a natural response, the pull of mindless gravity.

I believe I stated earlier that my faith is the Catholic Church.

If you did, I didn't catch it. Anyway, I am no longer Roman Catholic.

What do they say?

That Christ established them as his church, his Bride, that Peter was the first pope and all popes since then have been in apostolic succession. That salvation is most likely from participating in the sacraments of the RCC.

Sorry, no idea what you are talking about.

According to the Gospels, when Jesus outlined what was going to happen (him being arrested and tried), Peter tried to stop him. Jesus rebuked him, calling him Satan. This is why I commented as such. You said how is it evil to call evil people out for being evil. Well...Jesus called Peter Satan, and yet...Peter is supposedly the first pope, the man who established the church.

Who are you considering the victims? The table flippers or those having their tables flipped?

I'd imagine those people who had their tables flipped and who were being chased via a whip would view themselves as victims.

I would think if being honest we would both agree there are situations where abuse is occurring and it might require anger/outrage/even table flipping to stop the abuse.

So it then becomes permissible to do what would ordinarily be immoral actions?

It seems to me the main point you are trying to make in this thread is you don’t want some religion forcing you to accept their morality. But you are arguing a strawman.

How is it? The RCC is infamous for doing just this
https://www.irishcentral.com/news/pries ... e-abortion
The above link isn't the only time the RCC has demanded that to take part in their sacraments, one must discard their own personal moral code and go with what the RCC says is moral.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Braz ... rtion_case

First, like I have been demonstrating throughout this thread there is no my morality and your morality. There is simply the moral law. And this moral law is not based on religion.

Then you and I must be talking past one another.

[John Human]

An act that is wrong today may be right tomorrow or in another place with other people.

Poppycock! Truth is absolute. It is illogical to suggest otherwise.

So then. It was OK to keep and beat slaves half to death back in the days of Moses? And now it's not?

Which is it? Was slave keeping and beating always wrong, or always right?

As has been noted before, the moral code of the Old Testament Hebrews was a limitation. For example, "an eye for an eye" prohibits disproportionate retribution. The ancient Hebrews were far from perfect, and their received moral code was designed for a people at their stage of development. Obviously, parts of it are no longer useful. By the way, looking at your signature, I have been informed that YHWH does indeed exist as a demon, and has existed for millennia.

Regarding truth, it can be defined as an accurate or correct representation of the nature, state or condition of things. Slavery was morally wrong in ancient times, but it was all but universally practiced. Once again, the law that provided for the beating of a slave implicitly prohibited arbitrarily killing him. When making moral codes, a practical necessity is to deal with a people as they are. The moral code of Jesus Christ was an evolution of the old Mosaic Law, made possible by the existence of this body of commandments, a cultural element that wasn't shared by surrounding cultures.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

RightReason wrote:



Quote:
An act that is wrong today may be right tomorrow or in another place with other people.



Poppycock! Truth is absolute. It is illogical to suggest otherwise.



So then. It was OK to keep and beat slaves half to death back in the days of Moses? And now it's not?

Which is it? Was slave keeping and beating always wrong, or always right?

I already preemptively answered this in this thread because as usual someone who does not understand history or Sacred Scripture comes along and asks this question. <sigh>

Slavery was never ok. God permitted such barbaric customs due to man’s hardness of hearts. Man has continually been on a journey in regards to his moral behavior. This doesn’t mean morality has changed. Slavery wasn’t right/good 2000 years ago just because it was legal or practiced and abortion isn’t right/good today just because it is legal or practiced. Do you really not understand that?

In fact, God attempted baby steps in teaching His people the wrongness of slavery. In Mosaic law we see commands to treat slaves better. Now, you may think it is horrible to say one must have good reason to beat a slave, but that actually was an improvement for these uncivilized people. The pagans would beat/kill slaves for any reason – just because, but Moses informed the Israelites more was expected of them. They were not to mistreat slaves. They were to welcome the alien. They were to take care of their widows, etc. At that time in history this treating people with dignity was not the norm. Slaves, women, children, those not from the same tribe were all treated as inferior, second hand citizens and were often exploited, mistreated, and disregarded. God said NO!

Again – what was wrong 2000 years ago is wrong today and what is wrong today was wrong 2000 years ago whether people acted accordingly or not.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 25 by marco]

a lie may not be wrong, but a life-saver.

Of course. We call that being reasonable, but has nothing to do with right/wrong existing. In a particular/specific situation one could claim right/wrong. No need to cower or back pedal from such a pronouncement. It is something that can be known.


If Nazis show up at my door and I am hiding a Jewish person and they ask me if I am and I lie that would not be immoral. No one is suggesting specifics/intent, etc don’t matter when it comes to morality. Of course they do! That in no way negates my premise that right and wrong exist and is something that can be known by man. Claiming moral truth is absolute does not mean each individual situation does not come with its own specifics that must be assessed to know/determine right/wrong behavior. Sex itself is not immoral. Of course having sex with someone else’s spouse is. That doesn’t mean one can say, “Ah ha! See! That means morality is not absolute!� Puhlease.

In order to preserve some vestige of justification for objective morality, one is forced to look at extreme situations. But of course it is incorrect to frame our moral theory by reference to the extreme or exceptional case.

I agree with most of what you said, because in reality we are not typically presented with complex moral conundrums. Moral truth is typically a lot less complicated then we might like to pretend. Yes, we can present extreme cases suggesting hypothetical moral dilemmas, but oddly enough that is not what I am doing at all, nor is it what most of us are presented with on a daily basis.


Typically, we are confronted with the decisions like -- to cheat on the exam, cheat on our spouse, spread gossip and slander, force myself on someone sexually, terminate my pregnancy, etc. These are not extremes – rather quite common and to suggest there is no moral right/wrong is intellectually dishonest. And yes, any of these examples can be rationalized – “everyone else is cheating so I have to cheat to keep up, I am in an unloving marriage so it’s ok if I have an affair, I’m just informing others about the kind of person someone is out of concern, I was drunk, I’m only 18 and not married�, etc. And while all human beings can be sympathetic to what a person might be going through -- I am afraid that is not justification for wrongdoing. We can definitively say it is always wrong to cheat on one’s spouse, abortion is always wrong, rape is always wrong. It is amazing to me that we now live in a world where people can’t do that.

But you challenge me to explain how, even in the extreme case of rape, there is no guiding moral principle for us that defines the deed as wrong or sinful or criminal.

Actually there is and you go on to use some. You say let’s look at this or that – to which I agree. Let’s assess the situation . . .

Even if a person is mentally ill or drunk or was abused themselves, while unfortunate, that does not mean if they commit rape it doesn’t count. It just means perhaps we can understand why they did what they did, but of course, what they did (sexually force themselves upon a person against the person’s will) was still commit the immoral act of rape. We, as human beings, can know this is wrong – and we do! We all have this guiding moral principle we hold up as the standard and rightly so.

Quote:

We do. It’s called reason/logic via observation and acknowledgment of the world we live in and man’s relationship to this world.




This is a contradiction. If we have an objective moral standard, we don't need reason to apply it; it is axiomatically true.

Your comment is self defeating because it presupposes reason is necessary to be used to even judge your comment that if we have to use reason then something cannot be true. That is absurd! That is how we determine truth. We are rational beings. Moral truths are that which has been reasoned by man by observing this world we live in and our relationship with this world. Moral truth wouldn’t exist without reason. Animals are not held to moral laws. We do not say the tiger was immoral for kicking the lion out of his den and taking it over for his own. We don’t say the praying mantis who eats her mate after sex is immoral. Morality is for those who can reason!


Of course we have to reason whether an action is right or wrong and that is exactly what we do. Why would you suggest that if we have to use reason then something by defacto must not be objectively true. It is through reason that we can know truth.

We can label lying wrong but then we discover it may NOT be wwrong.

Of course, but it would always be right/wrong in the specific situation you are discussing/describing. Like I said, if a Nazi soldier said he was gong to kill anyone who is Jewish and he asked a Jewish person if they were Jewish and they lied, the Jewish person would not be guilty of being immoral for lying. In that situation, never would the Jewish person be guilty of immorality. Every reasonable person can know/understand this. If the exact same situation happened 50 years earlier or 50 years later, the same conclusion would always be reached -- that is what we would call objective moral truth.

There is NO objective standard

Incorrect. Of course there is.

just human judgment

Yes, human judgment based on reason, logic, truth/facts/science about the world and our relationship with this world. Human judgment does not contradict or negate moral truth.

, and what was seen as wrong yesterday may be right tomorrow.

Nope.

Homosexuality was once seen as so bad that homosexual people were killed. Such was the application of some objective standard of morality.

That was never an application of objective morality. That was a horrible immoral treatment of people with same sex attraction. It wasn’t right then and it isn’t right now. It will never be right. See? Moral truth has not changed.

Even in mathematics I would hesitate to speak with such assured certainty. I have given instances where something that was wrong become right, given the circumstances.

Again – of course -- which means someone messed up and improperly diagnosed the original problem and soon found out what they thought existed didn’t – something else existed which of course makes it an entirely different problem. If you find me having sex with Joe and think Joe is married, you would judge my act as immoral. However, if you later found out that Joe in fact is my husband, well then you would recognize the immorality you applied to my situation no longer applies –not because it is not immoral to have sex with someone else’s spouse, rather because you realized that was not the situation to be judged.

Judgement, not some predetermined standard, is involved in making moral decisions.

Of course it is if by predetermined I mean determined by the world we live in and our relationship to this world – which is what I mean! It is precisely by this predetermined standard that we know right from wrong/ good from bad. We operate according to this predetermined standard on a daily basis by recognizing that by simply being human we have dignity and the right to life.

RightReason wrote:



Joe: There is no such thing as truth.
John: Is that true?


This is a semantic conundrum. We are in Bertrand Russell territory, and we are not discussing morality.

We aren’t discussing morality? And here that is exactly what I thought we are discussing.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 26 by rikuoamero]

Just for clarification's sake, I am not going to answer each line in distinct order. I'm going to be basically hopping to and fro, just in case you were wondering.

Got it.

I asked for the names of people who, in their capacity as parents
1) conquered other lands
2) killed large numbers of people

Again, this has happened throughout history. Anyone who served in combat during any number of wars fought throughout history has done this.

I can agree with you that I view rape as a moral wrong, but I'm not going to do as what you demand and say I view it as a moral wrong above anyone's opinion.

Why?

Quote:
And please tell me you aren’t going to somehow suggest that because there was slavery in Biblical times, it was under full approval of God. Due to man’s hardness of hearts, God has permitted certain evils – this in no way is endorsement.

According to the OT, God didn't just permit it, he crafted laws for it.

You have a misunderstanding of Scripture. See my post to Elijah in previous post.

Anyway, this is more or less the disagreement I have with Christians and Christianity - they point to a God whom they say is the source of their morality, and yet here, you say your God permits (or as I say, commands for) something that you have said you view as immoral.
How can what you say is the source of your morality allow for or command for, immorality?

God never commanded immorality. In fact, He tried to accompany these Neanderthals and help them to start seeing the errors of their ways. Also, God is divine. He is not subject to the natural moral law. The moral law applies to human beings – not other animal species, not angels, not God. They are based on what we can know to be reasonable based on the way this earthly world works.

Quote:
You seriously believe that the wrongness of rape is a matter of opinion and if someone does not think it is wrong, then it is right for him and he is not bound to live according to the moral order?

You're putting words in my mouth. I think it would be great if all people could agree that rape is wrong, but at the end of the day, I recognise that such a thing would be nothing more than all people having the same opinion.

LOL! You can’t even say it would mean all people have the right opinion! So sad. How are you not confident that rape is wrong? How can you not say it is always wrong and if someone thinks it isn’t that does not simply mean their opinion is different than yours, it means they are getting it wrong!!!!

Quote:
Of course you do.

No I do not. I do not act as if believe or know the world to be 'ordered/designed". I ask you to retract this. If you do not, then you are arguing against a strawman of your own creation, and not responding to what I actually say.

K, so you don’t eat to stay alive? Do you consume food through your ears? I’m pretty sure you accept the order/design of the world. I’m pretty sure to live expecting the sun to go down and the sun to come up.

Quote:
Do you believe the purpose of our digestive system is to digest food, which turns food into energy which enables us live and therefore you eat everyday?

Was my digestive system designed by someone or something with grander intelligence than I? If so, please explain why I am now lactose intolerant, compared to when I was younger when I was not. Milk is a great way to obtain calcium, as well as being used in other dishes such as soups, but now I cannot eat them.
If this really is design, then it's sloppy design.

Your lactose intolerance is likely to do with environmental toxins. It could even be wear and tear on your ancestry that goes 100’s of years back which over time has weakened our human body. If a person over the years doesn’t take care of their car, puts orange juice in the gas tank instead of gas, it isn’t really design failure of the car that is to blame. We’d call that user error.

Quote:
Would you ever attempt to stick food into your ear in order to get the energy you need to live? Of course not – you respect the design/order of the world we live in and act accordingly.

I don't stick food in my ear, not out of a "respect for the design/order", but simply because the ear has no ability to digest food. Where is the connection between these two?

So you do recognize the ear was not designed for food intake – that it has a different purpose/function. You acknowledge this very observable fact. Whew!

And if a person does not believe rape to be bad were to come along...? Is that person automatically wrong, and you right?

Yes. But it has nothing to do with me. It has to do with what we can know from the world we live in, which is something everyone can know via reason, logic, observation, and acknowledgment.

Quote:
Well, I thought your original post said it was your bowl, in which case you have the right to say what you would like it to be used for.

Apologies for not being clear. In the bowl hypothetical, consider the property ownership of the bowl to be moot. All I want to focus on is the claim from you that doing something other than the intended purpose for a thing is somehow immoral.

I have argued a thing can have multiple purposes, but we can also know from this world what something is intended for and know to therefore use it accordingly or suffer the consequences. This would be the wise thing. And just using something incorrectly is not necessarily immoral. If I can’t find a baseball bat but want to play baseball with my friends and use a stick instead -- that isn’t an immoral act. Of course, part of why it isn’t immoral would be because a stick could be used as a bat and I’m not hurting anyone in using a stick instead of a bat, etc. But what if I chose to use a cat for my bat. Now, that would be immoral. Why? Maybe the cat was just a stray I found in the street. Or maybe I even owned the cat. It would be wrong to use the cat in that way. I think it more than reasonable to agree human beings would not consider the use of the stick immoral, but the sue of a cat immoral. As humans, we use our reason to make sense out of this world and we can know what is right/wrong.

Quote:
Human reason could easily conclude that said bowl can have several purposes. I think, however it would be very difficult to suggest the purpose of a bowl could be to fertilize an egg. A bowl, in fact, could not fertilize an egg.

Where I have suggested anything like that? I have not suggested that one can give a purpose to an object that it is simply incapable of doing.

So, you admit things have certain purposes? So, we agree it is daft to suggest use of something for which it was not designed. Glad to hear it.

Quote:
Not at all. See my response above. The purpose of the bowl would be to hold something/contain something/carry something. We can conclude this via the shape/form of the bowl. The bowl would help me very little in helping my body receive oxygen, or aiding my body in its digestion of food, or helping me see better. However, it acts as a great container in which to hold something. Again, it really isn’t rocket science.

So when it comes to morality in the usage of a thing, the morality of using a thing as one see's fit basically boils down to whether or not the person who made the object bothers to open their mouth and say what their intended purpose is?

Uumm . . . wow. No. The morality comes in regards to what you admit. We cannot give a purpose to an object that it is incapable of doing.


Here’s an example . . . if the vagina is observed to be malleable and stretchy and self cleaning and is proven to be not a hostile environment to sperm, rather an environment that permits sperm to thrive, whereas those sperm go on to fertilize an egg to eventually create a human being, we might we conclude a purpose/function in this scenario. Any good scientist would recognize a very important purpose of the penis, the vagina, sexual intercourse, etc.


Now take the anus. All scientific observation demonstrates that it does not receive objects into it very well. The membranes of the anus are observably thin and tight and can easily tear or rupture causing the spread of disease, etc. Even the CDC, after careful scientific study, has declared anal sex as high risk sexual behavior. So, perhaps since we both agree we cannot really give purpose to an object that it is incapable of doing and in fact we do give purpose to objects all the time for what we do see them capable of doing and what we observe them to do well, and well we can see how this makes sense, right? I mean surely it is understandable to consider it wrong to use something for which it was not intended if it is not in the person’s or another person’s best interest, or if it could cause harm? And certainly we can say the more man uses things rightly or correctly or for their intended purpose the more peace/human fulfillment he will have, because we are aware of the consequences that can occur if he doesn’t.

So how does it follow that a man having relations with one woman (perhaps the two marry, perhaps the woman doesn't tell him of her other partners), and the man getting a venereal disease, is a result of his "immoral choices"?

It might not be the result of his immoral choices, but again it is likely the result of her immoral choices or certainly someone’s immoral choice down the road. Again, getting a venereal disease is not a punishment from God. It is simply the consequences of our behavior and often even takes innocent victims in its wake. So given knowledge of these consequences as human beings we are smart enough to then be able to say promiscuity and having multiple sexual partners or not knowing who those partners have been with is not wise or in man’s best interest. So, once gain, we can determine the wrongness of something like promiscuity by what we have observed about it in the world we live. And given this observation we can conclude that it is not inconsequential or morally neutral. Given all the science, we can say it’s not good for man to sleep around.

Even if venereal disease was not a threat, there is tons of sociological evidence showing the emotional/psychological problems with “sleeping around�. The social sciences show this to particularly true for women/girls, but for all human beings. Loneliness, insecurity, low self-esteem, are some of the psychological effects the social science research sees when studying promiscuity.

Then why not focus on these problems, instead of having led by talking about STIs?

It was one example. The way we come to conclusions about something is rarely one thing. It is using our reasoning abilities to assess the whole situation. Typically, people like to reduce a moral truth to one tag line. Those Christian groups say you shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage because you might catch something. Lol! That isn’t the moral objective to sex outside of marriage.


We need to ask ourselves. How is the body designed? What happens when men and women have sex? What are the effects of having casual sex? One night stands? Non committal sex? Sex at too young of an age? What effect does it have on an unmarried relationship when the couple finds themselves pregnant? Is this fair to the unborn child? Does one’s sexual pleasure trump societal consequences that may result?


There are multiple reasons we can know via observation and acknowledgment and reason and logic why it is better to wait until marriage to have sex. These include physical and emotional reasons as well as not getting pregnant and bringing a child into the world when you aren’t committed or ready to care and love for that child, etc. So, sorry no one tag line reason why something is right or wrong, which is what critics of those who stand up for what is right/wrong want, is fair. They want to reduce your argument to one thing so they can then write it off as silly/non significant when in fact that is not a fair assessment. As humans we have the ability to look at the whole picture and make reasonable, wise decisions that acknowledge the truth of this world we live in. Of course, we are also free to deny science/facts and truth and fall back on, “no one is going to tell me what to do�, or �I don’t care. That’s not going to happen to me. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with having as many sexual partners as I like. You’re just trying to force your morality on me!�

Quote:
Yes, drunkenness is immoral. It is not in man’s best interest. It adversely affects one’s health, one’s relationships, one’s work, one’s family, and one’s overall well being. Is this something you are unaware of?

Even just the one time? What if I live in a cabin out in the middle of nowhere, and I've got a twelve pack. Is it immoral of me to get drunk?

Actually yes. What if you get your shot gun out goofing around and shoot your foot off? What if you are too drunk to notice your house caught on fire? Again, not rocket science for man to acknowledge that getting plastered isn’t cool.

Quote:
Uuumm . . . yes, taking the life of an innocent human being is immoral.

And is this, along with all the other things you've been talking about, something other than your opinion of what is immoral?

So, you think it is ok to take the life of an innocent human being? Come on! How?

Quote:
So why in the world would God, who is divine (supernatural) be judged according to the moral law?

Because he is, according to you, the source of (your) morality.

Actually, I didn’t bring up God, you did. I have continued to argue that human beings can know right from wrong regardless of belief in God. Again, the world exists. It works in a certain way. There is an order/design to it. Through observation we can come to see that if we live in accordance with this natural moral order, we will be happy/fulfilled. When we attempt to live contrary to moral law, we are faced with consequences that can get in the way of man’s fulfillment.

It makes no sense to me to be saying one gets their morality from some other being, and yet that other being violates or does things at odds with that morality.

No it doesn’t. So why do you keep saying that? I did not say man can only know moral truth via God. Also, I did not say, nor believe God violates moral law. You do not seem to understand the conversation.

It's like a parent saying to a child "Don't smoke, it's bad for you", all the while with a lit cigarette hanging from their lips.

Uummm . . . no, it might be like say a computer saying, “After carefully acknowledging the way this planet works, I advise you not to smoke, it’s bad for you.� And of course since a computer is not a human being, it does not have to worry about the harmful effects of cigarette smoking.

I believe I stated earlier that my faith is the Catholic Church.

If you did, I didn't catch it. Anyway, I am no longer Roman Catholic.

You don’t say.

Quote:
What do they say?

That Christ established them as his church, his Bride, that Peter was the first pope and all popes since then have been in apostolic succession. That salvation is most likely from participating in the sacraments of the RCC.

Sort of. The Sacraments aren’t magic. They aren’t your ticket into heaven if you don’t believe and act accordingly.

Quote:
Sorry, no idea what you are talking about.

According to the Gospels, when Jesus outlined what was going to happen (him being arrested and tried), Peter tried to stop him. Jesus rebuked him, calling him Satan. This is why I commented as such. You said how is it evil to call evil people out for being evil. Well...Jesus called Peter Satan, and yet...Peter is supposedly the first pope, the man who established the church.

Getting off topic. Suffice to say you are demonstrating more of Sacred Scripture that you seem to not fully understand.

Quote:
Who are you considering the victims? The table flippers or those having their tables flipped?

I'd imagine those people who had their tables flipped and who were being chased via a whip would view themselves as victims.

Riiight. So, if you had a home and people came in and started using it as a market place, and you got angry, flipped over their wares, and chased them out with a whip you would perfectly understand when they considered themselves the victim and not you?

Quote:
I would think if being honest we would both agree there are situations where abuse is occurring and it might require anger/outrage/even table flipping to stop the abuse.

So it then becomes permissible to do what would ordinarily be immoral actions?

Again, have you ever taken an ethics course? It is not immoral to stand up against immorality.

Quote:
It seems to me the main point you are trying to make in this thread is you don’t want some religion forcing you to accept their morality. But you are arguing a strawman.

How is it? The RCC is infamous for doing just this
https://www.irishcentral.com/news/pries ... sh-politic...
The above link isn't the only time the RCC has demanded that to take part in their sacraments, one must discard their own personal moral code and go with what the RCC says is moral.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Braz ... rtion_case

I could not get the first link, but I fail to see your beef.


First, the Catholic Church has long been an advocate of following one’s conscience. Of course, when there is a situation that is intrinsically immoral (like abortion) then one doesn’t just get to have an abortion and then say they were simply following their conscience. The Church is all about forgiveness. If a person does some immoral act, he need only repent to obtain forgiveness. If he is not sorry, the Church is under no obligation to say, “ahh don’t worry about it. It’s all good!�. If the person doesn’t want forgiveness, what do they want? Why do people who do immoral things insist on others telling them it’s ok? That’s not the Church’s job. The Church has no choice but to uphold truth.


As G.K. Chesterton once said, “I don’t want a church to be right when I am right. I want a church to be right when I am wrong.�


Many Christians today search for the church that agrees with them . . . how convenient.

Quote:
First, like I have been demonstrating throughout this thread there is no my morality and your morality. There is simply the moral law. And this moral law is not based on religion.

Then you and I must be talking past one another.

Ya think?