Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

ShortWarning · 4 Jan 2013 at 17:36

BunnyKillBot said:
Morality is not subjective. Moral ambiguity exists where law is misinterpreted as morality. For example, a common held 'moral' - do not steal - falls appart when our would-be-alladin thief is stealing food to live, suddenly a more moral act. Do not steal is not morality, it is an attempt to define morality by law.

Morally to me, stealing is wrong (I have no need to steal).
Morally to Aladdin, stealing is not wrong (he needs to steal to live).

So surely this means it's subjective depending on circumstance?

ShortWarning · 4 Jan 2013 at 17:37

ringo747 said:
Ok, so if you liked murdering Jews, then being murdered yourself by Jews is fine?

What a silly analogy but if you live by the sword you have to expect to die by the sword.

estebanrey · 4 Jan 2013 at 17:39

ringo747 said:
Ok, so if you liked murdering Jews, then being murdered yourself by Jews is fine?

I can't deny that had Hitler been killed by a Jew there would have been some poetic justice to it yes.

But as said above, it's a rubbish analogy which actually proves the rule you are trying to dispute.

One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself

So if one doesn't want to be murdered by Jews, you shouldn't kill Jews.

RDM · 4 Jan 2013 at 17:40

BunnyKillBot said:
Morality is not subjective. Moral ambiguity exists where law is misinterpreted as morality. For example, a common held 'moral' - do not steal - falls appart when our would-be-alladin thief is stealing food to live, suddenly a more moral act. Do not steal is not morality, it is an attempt to define morality by law.

So what are the defined objective moral rules?

ringo747 · 4 Jan 2013 at 17:40

ShortWarning said:
What a silly analogy but if you live by the sword you have to expect to die by the sword.

Not silly at all.

Using the golden rule as a basis for our morality says that this act is perfectly acceptable given the premise that "one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."

RDM · 4 Jan 2013 at 17:40

ringo747 said:
Not silly at all.

Using the golden rule as a basis for our morality says that this act is perfectly acceptable given the premise that "one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."

Most people have no real desire to be murdered though.

estebanrey · 4 Jan 2013 at 17:41

ShortWarning said:
Morally to me, stealing is wrong (I have no need to steal).
Morally to Aladdin, stealing is not wrong (he needs to steal to live).

So surely this means it's subjective depending on circumstance?

I think BunnyKillBot is confusing the word 'subjective' with 'objective'.

estebanrey · 4 Jan 2013 at 17:43

ringo747 said:
Not silly at all.

Using the golden rule as a basis for our morality says that this act is perfectly acceptable given the premise that "one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."

No it doesn't, as I stated above. Your example is turning the rule on it's head and therefore not conforming to it.

The rule states that if you don't want to be murdered by Jews then you shouldn't murder Jews.

Your analogy is more fitting to the expression "If you treat people badly you should expect to be treated badly yourself" which is not the Golden Rule.

ringo747 · 4 Jan 2013 at 17:46

estebanrey said:
No it doesn't, as I stated above. Your example is turning the rule on it's head and therefore not conforming to it.

The rule states that if you don't want to be murdered by Jews then you shouldn't murder Jews.

Your analogy is more fitting to the expression "If you treat people badly you should expect to be treated badly yourself" which is not the Golden Rule.

And what if you think that losing your life is good? Muslim suicide bombers as as example.

So are we basing this all around the level of harm done then?

estebanrey · 4 Jan 2013 at 17:51

ringo747 said:
And what if you think that losing your life is good? Muslim suicide bombers as as example.

So are we basing this all around the level of harm done then?

Again you are talking about people doing things to themselves which is NOT the Golden Rule.

It is do unto others as you want others to do unto you. Not do to others that you do to yourself.

Why are you finding this simple rule so hard to understand?

ringo747 · 4 Jan 2013 at 17:55

estebanrey said:
Again you are talking about people doing things to themselves which is NOT the Golden Rule.

It is do unto others as you want others to do unto you. Not do to others that you do to yourself.

Why are you finding this simple rule so hard to understand?

In this rule what terms can you use to describe a given act. Can you even use the terms good and bad?

So if someone relished the idea of being raped, and also raped other people then this act is permissable under your reasoning?

estebanrey · 4 Jan 2013 at 18:00

ringo747 said:
In this rule what terms can you use to describe a given act. Can you even use the terms good and bad?

So if someone relished the idea of being raped, and also raped other people then this act is permissable under your reasoning?

Firstly the Golden Rule applies to personal morality, not objective fact so yes if someone 'relished the idea of being raped' they may well justify to themselves that it is OK to rape others, but that wouldn't mean the rest of society would judge that act as moral.

But given no one relishes being raped it's a bit of a moot point.

ringo747 · 4 Jan 2013 at 18:05

estebanrey said:
Firstly the Golden Rule applies to personal morality, not objective fact so yes if someone 'relished the idea of being raped' they may well justify to themselves that it is OK to rape others, but that wouldn't mean the rest of society would judge that act as moral.

But given no one relishes being raped it's a bit of a moot point.

O really? Someone with a mental disorder may very well relish it.

Others may not see it as being moral but they can't say the person is wrong!

Jason2 · 4 Jan 2013 at 18:06

estebanrey said:
Firstly the Golden Rule applies to personal morality, not objective fact so yes if someone 'relished the idea of being raped' they may well justify to themselves that it is OK to rape others, but that wouldn't mean the rest of society would judge that act as moral.

But given no one relishes being raped it's a bit of a moot point.

Look up Armin Meiwes. Using your logic he should never have been sentenced to prison. Afterall, the other guy consented to what happened to him.

estebanrey · 4 Jan 2013 at 18:08

ringo747 said:
O really? Someone with a mental disorder may very well relish it.

And someone with a mental disorder is also unlikely of understanding morality at all making the point even more irrelevant.

ringo747 · 4 Jan 2013 at 18:11

estebanrey said:
And someone with a mental disorder is also unlikely of understanding morality at all making the point even more irrelevant.

The point isn't irrelevant. You simply are trying to hide the fact that you can't admit rape is universally wrong. You don't need to understand morality to commit immoral acts.

I don't know why you even define it as morality when you can't even say if an act is right or wrong.

estebanrey · 4 Jan 2013 at 18:13

Jason2 said:
Look up Armin Meiwes. Using your logic he should never have been sentenced to prison. Afterall, the other guy consented to what happened to him.

Jesus H Christ.

Presuming Armin Meiwes doesn't want to be killed and eaten then he shouldn't have done it to someone else. He was breaking the golden rule, not conforming to it.

Secondly, what he did was illegal so why shouldn't he go to prison? If the laws says if you X then Y will happen to you then you can't expect not have Y if you do X.

Thirdly the Golden Rule it is not 'my logic', it is well known philosophical stance.

Let me ask you and Ringo a question, if morality comes from your Bible, should we torture or even just imprison people for adultery? Jesus thought we should after all...

So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.

Revelation 2:22

Naffa · 4 Jan 2013 at 18:15

estebanrey said:
Thirdly the Golden Rule it is not 'my logic', it is well known philosophical stance.

And it's also worth noting that it was Confucius who came up with it, not Jesus.

ringo747 · 4 Jan 2013 at 18:30

estebanrey said:
Let me ask you and Ringo a question, if morality comes from your Bible, should we torture or even just imprison people for adultery? Jesus thought we should after all...

Objective morality doesn't exist in your view so why is the Bible even relevant?

I am not an expert on biblical scholarship but as Castiel reminds you often to consider the context. Is this really encouraging immorality or is it imagery used to describe some doctrine associated with future events?

estebanrey · 4 Jan 2013 at 18:38

ringo747 said:
Objective morality doesn't exist in your view so why is the Bible even relevant?

It's no less relevant than the barrage of hypotheticals you've offered me.

I don't believe in objective morality but you do, hence why I am asking for your take on it.

ringo747 said:
I am not an expert on biblical scholarship but as Castiel reminds you often to consider the context. Is this really encouraging immorality or is it imagery used to describe some doctrine associated with future events?

'Consider the context' is nothing but code for "That was considered moral then, but isn't now so we'll change our interpretation of the scripture to fit with modern values and pretend that's what the Bible meant all along".