-->
@PGA2.0
Sure, children do all of these things.Does not the little child make a picture for their parents because it is thinking of them and wants to please them?
BUT DO THEY "CHOOSE" WHO THEY LOVE?
Is morality objective or subjective?
Posts
Total:
753
-->
@PGA2.0
The native tribes within the land (the New World) were judged by Thog to be unholy and sinful and a bad influence on the European immigrants.
-->
@PGA2.0
But no specific punishments for specific crimes?The specific crimes revolve around the Ten Commandments and our interactions with humanity and with God.
I got that part.
You failed to mention the specific (modern-day, earthly) punishments for each one.
-->
@3RU7AL
Isn't there some sort of "feeling" that you experience at some point BEFORE you actually "choose" to "sacrifice yourself" that may lead you to make that "choice"?Maybe. Remorse, guilt, or love, the feeling or conviction that the other person deserves your best.(IFF) your actions are based on your feelings-and-desires (AND) you don't "choose" your feelings-and-desires (THEN) you don't "choose" your actions (you are a feelings-and-desires puppet).
Why can't actions be based on both conditioned responses such as some feelings and desires that create pleasure as well as choices that lead to conditioned responses? If you know something is wrong or causes pain you may choose not to do it time after time until it becomes a conditioned response.
I burn my fingers on a hot stove element and I choose not to do that again. It is not desirable. Every time I'm near the hot element I choose not to put my fingers near the element or take cautions until it becomes an automatic response. Every once in a while, I might choose to risk burning my fingers to remove a piece of food that falls on or near the element instead of using a tool that is not handy.
This type of action is behavioural. It represents what does happen or what is, thus it is not a moral or ought choice or response. Behaviourism is an 'is' choice.
An ought choice is based on a moral obligation or duty of what should be, not personal taste or feelings but on an objective right or wrong outside of such feelings and desires. We may not want to follow the rule of "Do not murder" because we feel angry with someone but we understand it is something we ought not to do since we would not want someone to do that to us. We may also feel or empathize as to why something is wrong. But the moral is not based on our personal tastes, preferences, feelings or desires but on a known wrong. For those who do not know it is wrong to murder, we call them psychopaths, mentally unstable, or deranged.
Usually, when we speak of objective morality we speak not of feelings but of duties and obligations we understand as right or wrong.
-->
@3RU7AL
Does not the little child make a picture for their parents because it is thinking of them and wants to please them?Sure, children do all of these things.BUT DO THEY "CHOOSE" WHO THEY LOVE?
Not all the time. Kindness or patience is a choice. Wishing the best for someone is a choice. Not keeping a grudge is a choice. They can choose to be kind (thus loving) to a stranger.
-->
@3RU7AL
And what evidence do you have of this happening?The native tribes within the land (the New World) were judged by Thog to be unholy and sinful and a bad influence on the European immigrants.
-->
@3RU7AL
But no specific punishments for specific crimes?The specific crimes revolve around the Ten Commandments and our interactions with humanity and with God.I got that part.You failed to mention the specific (modern-day, earthly) punishments for each one.
No, I gave examples yet I did not list the punishment of every nation for such crimes.
-->
@PGA2.0
You failed to mention the specific (modern-day, earthly) punishments for each one.No, I gave examples yet I did not list the punishment of every nation for such crimes.
You waffled between "follow the law of the land" and "an eye for an eye" and "separation from god".
-->
@PGA2.0
Because every adult "choice" is based on a previous childish "choice" which is traceable to (EITHER) feelings (OR) desires.Why can't actions be based on both conditioned responses such as some feelings and desires that create pleasure [AND PAIN] as well as [*]choices[*] that lead to conditioned responses?
Every "choice" you make runs just like a perfectly logical computer program that god wrote when you were created with all of your FEELINGS and DESIRES at the beginning of time.
You can only make a "free" "choice" if you remove all of your FEELINGS and DESIRES.
-->
@3RU7AL
You failed to mention the specific (modern-day, earthly) punishments for each one.No, I gave examples yet I did not list the punishment of every nation for such crimes.You waffled between "follow the law of the land" and "an eye for an eye" and "separation from god".
I explained some of the similarities and differences between the Ten Commandments and the man-made laws of the land. Can you name a nation that does not have a law against murder?
-->
@PGA2.0
You waffled between "follow the law of the land" and "an eye for an eye" and "separation from god".I explained some of the similarities and differences between the Ten Commandments and the man-made laws of the land.
But you neglected to specify an "objective" punishment.
Can you name a nation that does not have a law against murder?
Murder has been defined zillions of different ways throughout history.
Revenge killing was often not considered "murder".
Duels to the death were (until relatively recently) not considered "murder".
And even today, poisoning thousands of people to death is generally not considered "murder".
-->
@3RU7AL
You waffled between "follow the law of the land" and "an eye for an eye" and "separation from god".I explained some of the similarities and differences between the Ten Commandments and the man-made laws of the land.But you neglected to specify an "objective" punishment.
Are you expecting to find an objective punishment in a relative world? The fact is that most nations throughout time have recognized murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, lying is wrong. So, even though they recognize this they are inconsistent in their punishment.
Can you name a nation that does not have a law against murder?Murder has been defined zillions of different ways throughout history.Revenge killing was often not considered "murder".
By a society or person? An eye for an eye where a crime is established and justified.
Duels to the death were (until relatively recently) not considered "murder".
So, are you saying that murder was not recognized within these societies or that this was an exception to the rule and this was considered outside the rule of murder since both parties were able to defend themselves and chose to settle the outcome in this manner? What would happen if one party decided not to engage and the other decided to kill them?
And even today, poisoning thousands of people to death is generally not considered "murder".
Where is this the case, other than some dictator doing it and where the International Criminal Court condemns the dictator's actions as wrong?
-->
@3RU7AL
The native tribes within the land (the New World) were judged by Thog to be unholy and sinful and a bad influence on the European immigrants.And what evidence do you have of this happening?
While these are unjust laws, in that the native American was treated unfairly, as a non-person or non-citizen of the country, what evidence do you have that this was judged by Thog, other than your hearsay?
How did Thog record this and where is it recorded as coming from Thog?
History is replete with examples of where one people conquer another and when that happens the laws of the land change.
-->
@PGA2.0
And even today, poisoning thousands of people to death is generally not considered "murder".Where is this the case, other than some dictator doing it and where the International Criminal Court condemns the dictator's actions as wrong?
Try this, [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
Why can't actions be based on both conditioned responses such as some feelings and desires that create pleasure [AND PAIN] as well as [*]choices[*] that lead to conditioned responses?Because every adult "choice" is based on a previous childish "choice" which is traceable to (EITHER) feelings (OR) desires.
So are you saying an adult can't choose something for themselves that is not based on a childhood choice? I think this is a hasty generalization, thus pure fallacy.
While I will agree that our choices are governed by our worldview bias we still make them. We see the evidence and we weigh it along with our beginning presuppositions - God or chance happenstance. That is our dividing line.
Every "choice" you make runs just like a perfectly logical computer program that god wrote when you were created with all of your FEELINGS and DESIRES at the beginning of time.
That is not the biblical revelation. That revelation is that humanity chose to do their own thing, chose to ignore what God said was good, thus they chose to open the door to evil. Their choice in Adam was evil since it opened the door to relativism and chose to do contrary to what was good.
You can only make a "free" "choice" if you remove all of your FEELINGS and DESIRES.
I'm not arguing for freedom of the will, I'm arguing that even though our wills are in bondage to sin, in bondage to doing things that God has said is wrong, we CHOOSE to do them anyway. Thus, humanity's inhumanity follows from our actions and our wills.
-->
@PGA2.0
History is replete with examples of where one people conquer another and when that happens the laws of the land change.
Exactly.
How do you declare this is unjust in some cases, but 100% justified in other cases? For example, [LINK]
-->
@PGA2.0
God or chance happenstance. That is our dividing line.
Does god have free-will?
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm not arguing for freedom of the will,
Ok, so no-free-will. Case closed.
I'm arguing that even though our wills are in bondage to sin,
Bondaged-will, I agree.
...in bondage to doing things that God has said is wrong, we CHOOSE to do them anyway.
We "choose" to be shackled? Do all prisoners "choose" to be shackled, or is this some sort of "special case"?
-->
@PGA2.0
Because every adult "choice" is based on a previous childish "choice" which is traceable to (EITHER) feelings (OR) desires.So are you saying an adult can't choose something for themselves that is not based on a childhood choice? I think this is a hasty generalization, thus pure fallacy.
(1) Do the "choices" you make as a child, affect the "choices" you make as an adult? (Y/N)
(2) Do the "choices" of care-takers affect the "choices" of their children? (Y/N)
-->
@3RU7AL
And even today, poisoning thousands of people to death is generally not considered "murder".Where is this the case, other than some dictator doing it and where the International Criminal Court condemns the dictator's actions as wrong?Try this, [LINK]
A movie with a poetic license regarding real life? What was the story based on?
-->
@3RU7AL
History is replete with examples of where one people conquer another and when that happens the laws of the land change.Exactly.How do you declare this is unjust in some cases, but 100% justified in other cases? For example, [LINK]
Two ways, by an objective standard (that God has revealed) and because the conquerers are or are not acting in a just way. Hitler's invasion was unjust. His cause was unjust. He needed to be stopped. Thank goodness there were the means to do so.
When God brings a people/nation to justice He has the means to restore to a better life and innocent life that was taken.
-->
@3RU7AL
God or chance happenstance. That is our dividing line.Does god have free-will?
Yes. He is omniscient. He knows all things, and He always does what is good for that is His nature. He chooses to shun evil and judge it.
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not arguing for freedom of the will,Ok, so no-free-will. Case closed.
No, the case is not closed. You still make choices that are influenced by your will. Your will was influenced by many other things (baggage) but YOU still chose. Thus, even though those choices may be bad in many cases, you are responsible for those bad choices. When you come before a court of law, charged with murder and the facts are indisputable that you committed the act you can't say that you did not choose to kill the other person or else they would still be alive, whether that choice was made from rage or precalculated and plotted over a long period of time, you knew the law and you chose to disregard it.
Those who chose an action made the choice to do the action. They chose to reject God. They chose to mock God. They chose to lie which is against what is best. Thus, they are guilty. A good judge will not overlook such crimes. He would not be good if he overlooked justice for wrongful actions.
I'm arguing that even though our wills are in bondage to sin,Bondaged-will, I agree....in bondage to doing things that God has said is wrong, we CHOOSE to do them anyway.We "choose" to be shackled? Do all prisoners "choose" to be shackled, or is this some sort of "special case"?
In the case God has presented to you (generic you) it is you who choose not to believe God, not even to believe this God exists in many cases. Thus, yes, in such a case you choose your bondage. You can't free yourself from such bondage of the will. It is not your desire to be free. Misery loves company!
-->
@3RU7AL
Because every adult "choice" is based on a previous childish "choice" which is traceable to (EITHER) feelings (OR) desires.So are you saying an adult can't choose something for themselves that is not based on a childhood choice? I think this is a hasty generalization, thus pure fallacy.(1) Do the "choices" you make as a child, affect the "choices" you make as an adult? (Y/N)
Sometimes, depending on the choice. Do those choices made young in life become ingrained as your worldview? Or do you still believe things that were proven to you to be wrong that you made in childhood? Do you still choose to believe such things?
(2) Do the "choices" of care-takers affect the "choices" of their children? (Y/N)
Depending on the choice.
-->
@PGA2.0
PFOA = a TEFLON byproduct
Finally DuPont reported its findings about PFOA to the EPA in 1991. By then, it had been in the water stream for decades. As Tennant predicted, DuPont had used a field near his property as a PFOA dumping ground since the ‘80s.
If PFOA so severely damaged Tennant’s cows, what was it doing to the local West Virginia population? How far had the PFOA traveled in the water supply? (Spoiler: Very far.) Scientists believe PFOA is likely contaminating the drinking water of tens of millions of Americans, across multiple states.
PFOA contamination is now a global problem, as well. Though PFOA is no longer manufactured in the United States, China produces thousands of pounds of PFOA daily. Cases are sprouting in Australia. But there’s been a breakthrough. In May 2019, 180 countries agreed to ban the production and use of PFOA. [LINK]
-->
@PGA2.0
Belief is not a "choice" any more than love is a "choice"....it is you who choose not to believe God
YOu CAN "choose" to follow someone or "choose" to DO or not do some particular thing.
You can't simply "choose" to believe or disbelieve in anything.
I can't stop believing in air.
I can't stop believing in water.
I can't "choose" to believe in Santa Claus.
I can't "choose" to believe in unicorns.
Belief is simply NOT a "choice".
-->
@3RU7AL
PFOA = a TEFLON byproductFinally DuPont reported its findings about PFOA to the EPA in 1991. By then, it had been in the water stream for decades. As Tennant predicted, DuPont had used a field near his property as a PFOA dumping ground since the ‘80s.If PFOA so severely damaged Tennant’s cows, what was it doing to the local West Virginia population? How far had the PFOA traveled in the water supply? (Spoiler: Very far.) Scientists believe PFOA is likely contaminating the drinking water of tens of millions of Americans, across multiple states.PFOA contamination is now a global problem, as well. Though PFOA is no longer manufactured in the United States, China produces thousands of pounds of PFOA daily. Cases are sprouting in Australia. But there’s been a breakthrough. In May 2019, 180 countries agreed to ban the production and use of PFOA. [LINK]
This is another case for objective morality.
It tells me sometimes the truth is hard to get at and not all laws are just. Sometimes people and companies get away with wrongful actions. But the outrage would show that you and others believe these things are most definitely wrong. Based on what - your relative ideas? How does that make anything right or wrong? How can you show moral outrage and call something wrong unless there is an objective measure that discloses what is right?
-->
@PGA2.0
Primary Mammalian Instinct.But the outrage would show that you and others believe these things are most definitely wrong. Based on what - your relative ideas?
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR CLOSE FRIENDS AND FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR LAND
ANY FACTORY SHOULD BE 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONTAMINATION (and death and injury).
IN THE SAME WAY YOU WON'T LET YOUR NEIGHBOR LEAVE POISONED OR TOXIC TRASH IN YOUR HOUSE.
-->
@3RU7AL
...it is you who choose not to believe GodBelief is not a "choice" any more than love is a "choice".
Sure it is. I can choose to treat someone kindly or be patient with them to an extent, even with those who many would consider as not deserving such mercy or compassion.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
I can choose how I am going to respond to you, with love and compassion, with hate and malice, or somewhere in-between.
YOu CAN "choose" to follow someone or "choose" to DO or not do some particular thing.You can't simply "choose" to believe or disbelieve in anything.
Sure you can. You can weigh the evidence and reasonableness of a position or worldview and change your beliefs.
I can't stop believing in air.I can't stop believing in water.
That is because the belief is reasonable, obvious, and logical to believe in, plus such a belief corresponds with your senses.
I can't "choose" to believe in Santa Claus.
Yet some do choose to believe in him despite the evidence against his existence.
I can't "choose" to believe in unicorns.
Some people do choose to believe in unicorns based on a feeling or what they see as evidence. When you hear something you have a choice of whether you are going to believe it or not. That may depend on how reasonable you find the evidence.
Belief is simply NOT a "choice".
It can be. It is whether the belief you place faith in is reasonable, unreasonable, or blind. That is the question. Granted, our culture, our environment, our family, our subgroups, may radically affect what we believe.
It is our core beliefs that are not easily rejected or dislodged. Those beliefs require a paradigm shift. Upon those beliefs sits the whole foundation of beliefs. The outer core of belief is constantly changing and being modified.