Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There are many external pieces of evidence and proof than just me.Why should that matter?
Because the truth matters. Because anyone can make a delusional claim or believe something that is not true.
If you have a personal relationship with an all-powerful god, who cares if anyone believes you?
Because evidence can point to whether a belief is justified or not, whether it is reasonable or irrational or blind. When you have two or more conflicting beliefs about God one if any can only be true.
Yours, to date, depends solely on yourself as a reliable witness.When you say "depends", what are you talking about. Thog is non-contingent.
So you say. Why should I believe you or what you believe is true? It appears to have no means of verification other than your word.
Why should I believe you?YOU SHOULDN'T.NEVER TRUST SOMEONE ELSE'S GNOSIS.FIND YOUR OWN GNOSIS.
Well, you have established your made-up god knowledge is not worth believing. The message is not worth repeating or dying for.
Who else believes in this Thog and where is this documented?Thog created the concept of religion a hundred thousand years ago and all religions are aspects of Thog.
What is your proof? Present some evidence other than your hearsay.
All religions are evidence of this.
Are evidence of what, Thog creating a concept of religion? How is that evidence? It is just one persons hearsay - mere assertion.
If you don't believe me, it's because Thog doesn't want you to believe me.
Thog cannot be omnibenevolent. He leaves no witness of himself/herself/itself except your weak belief to date. Go ahead and belief such nonsense then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Different families develop unique customs.Dolphins, wolves, and apes all have eccentric customs they pass down to their children.By instinct.And learned behavior.
Okay. How is that morally good? Behaviour is what is. How does what is correspond to what ought to be? Perhaps it keeps you alive. Are you saying that makes it moral? Whatever keeps you alive is morally acceptable?
Do they think and reason that eating another animal is wrong? Do they debate whether one takes the prey from another is wrong or do they just do it if they are stronger and are able to do so? Do they have elaborate laws on what is an is not to be done?For example, apes will sometimes [1] make a false alarm call to scare the troop away from a choice piece of food, but if they are caught (lying and stealing), the troop beats them senseless.
[1] How is that immoral? They want to eat and don't have the means unless they are the dominant members. Those in control or "the majority" gangs up because they have been denied the meal. Do you think they have a concept of stealing or lying or just are upset that they were excluded from their privileged position of the first dobs? There is a hierarchy there. It is the law of the strongest survive and a battle for survival. If there is an abundance the lower members get to eat. If not, they wait for another day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No, we are not what God intended since the Fall.Your hypothetical god should plan ahead a little better.I guess "omniscience" is out-the-window?
He allowed Adam to choose and He allowed it for a purpose. That purpose demonstrates to us that without God we are in a sea of moral relativism. We can't make sense of morals yet we use them every day. It becomes a subjective smorgasbord of likes and preferences. How does a preference or like equate to what is right? It only does if the like is identical to the right. Right is a fixed address. Without God we subjective ourselves to not only our owe evils but the evils of others. That is demonstrated by history. It is a witness to our own moral deficiencies, a witness to our sin and living apart from God.
Psalm 11:3 (NASB)
If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?”
So the object of those who oppose God is to tear down the foundation of righteousness, God Himself, and put in their own insufficient foundation that crumbles under scrutiny.
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is a choice. You have a volition even if it is in bondage to sin and has the disposition to reject God.Error-slave can only make errors.I have no idea what point you are making.I say, if you follow god, then you are a god-slave.
As you are a slave to whatever controls you. Jesus came to set us free from darkness and our own bondages. He said He is the light of the world. Those who are not in the light walk in darkness. He made it a matter of truth or falsity.
Others say, if you DON'T follow god, then you are an error-slave.I say, if you are an error-slave, how can you be expected to identify "the truth"?????????????????????
It becomes willy nilly, doesn't it, if you have no fixed and absolute reference point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please define "fact".What corresponds to what is the case.Do the biblical teachings come from the 66 writings we call the Bible canon? Do these writings actually convey to the reader God and according to these writings His thoughts, commands, warnings, and decrees?If you can't verify that something "corresponds to what is the case" then you can't call it a FACT.
Are there 66 canonical ancient writings we call the Bible? Yes or no?
Do these writings all convey information about the being called God therein as to His speaking to them and revealing information to humanity? Is that a true statement that they do recount such things? Yes or no?
You're simply dressing up OPINION by painting it with a cheap coat of "FACT".
It is not opinion if what I said corresponds to what is the case. These writings reveal a being they call God that they reveal has spoken to them. Is that true or false?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The desire to earn money to excess (beyond meeting your basic needs for food, clothing and shelter) is motivated by envy.It depends on what you do with that money but in many, perhaps most cases, I agree that it leads to greed. It is not money that is evil, it is the love or worship of it that causes evil. God knows we need money to live.Now you're back to endorsing thought-police.
How so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Thog is defined as personal.To expect extrapersonal evidence of a personal entity is illogical.You are very lucky, some might even say privileged for Thog to speak to you.So what has Thog said to you?Thog doesn't speak much. Thog demonstrates pure gnosis.If Thog has anything to say to you, Thog will contact you personally. Emphasis on personally.
So there is no evidence unless Thog decides to personally contact you. It is totally subjective to your mind and your testimony. So, establish your testimony is reliable. That is the difference between the biblical revelation and your revelation. There are many external pieces of evidence and proof than just me. Yours, to date, depends solely on yourself as a reliable witness. Why should I believe you? Who else believes in this Thog and where is this documented?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Wolves, apes, and meerkats have social norms. So do humans. And we've had them for a very long time.They do not debate about moral values but humans do.They negotiate social norms.
How do they do it and how is that a moral issue?
Different families develop unique customs.Dolphins, wolves, and apes all have eccentric customs they pass down to their children.
By instinct. Do they think and reason that eating another animal is wrong? Do they debate whether one takes the prey from another is wrong or do they just do it if they are stronger and are able to do so? Do they have elaborate laws on what is an is not to be done?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) your hypothetical god is really really realzies (THEN) it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone thinks about it.Sure it matters. Then it matters whether you believe in this God or not. Then it matters in that God provides the necessary best that morality is based upon. Then it matters whether or not you believe in the one means God has given that reconciles us to Him. And a thousand more things.Insisting "it matters" is a bald assertion and an appeal to ignorance.
IFF this God exists it matters for He has disclosed it matters. You made up a logical statement on the IFF. I responded to your scenario even though I believe it is not hypothetical that God exists as you do. So I responded to your logic with THEN statements in correspondence and response to your original premise.
(IFF) your hypothetical god is omnipotent and omniscient and the sole origin and creator of all things (THEN) we are exactly what god intended, each one of us is a perfect representation of god's infinite wisdom.
No, we are not what God intended since the Fall. God intended the human to choose whether he wanted a loving relationship with God. God created the human being as 'good,' yet with the ability to choose. We disobeyed God in Adam. Adam was our federal head. He represented us. Adam determined the outcome by his actions and God permitted him his choice and the consequences.
And before you go all, free-willy on me, please understand that,(IFF) free = uninfluenced (AND) (IFF) will = goal-seeking (THEN) it is impossible for any action to be BOTH free and willed.
There again, Adam had free will. We do not in the sense that our wills are influenced by any number of factors, one of which is that we do not want a relationship with God. The Bible reveals the "natural man" does not seek God. That is why Jesus said we must be born again. We need a chanced mind towards God. That comes from His revelation, His word, His Spirit at work in our life, His Son. As natural people, I believe we seek what we desire rather than what is good to a large degree. We want to be autonomous.
Any free action must necessarily be indistinguishable from a random action.
As I said, we have volition, a will, and we choose yet our desires are selfish. Our goal is sided towards our own selves.
Any willed action must necessarily be influenced (motivated by desire and influenced by an imagined outcome).
True, it is influenced. The only persons who had the possibility to not sin were Adam and Eve. That was before the Fall. They had the choice to sin, or to not sin. Adam's choice affected us. Our natures have changed with the Fall. We sin and have a propensity to sin. We inherit that nature of disobedience from them. Once God was ignored and they chose to know evil they were distanced from the purity and holiness that is God. They started to do their own thing with themselves as their guides. They no longer had the witness and example of God. He withdrew.
Now, we choose to sin and cannot avoid sinning. That possibility is no longer an option. If you think it is, then try for a week not to lie, not to steal, not to covet, not to commit adultery in your mind, to hate (which Jesus likened to murder) for the same malice is present in those who murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Unless those are the facts (I.e., they do come from 66 different ancient manuscripts and that is what those manuscripts state).Please define "fact".
What corresponds to what is the case.
Do the biblical teachings come from the 66 writings we call the Bible canon? Do these writings actually convey to the reader God and according to these writings His thoughts, commands, warnings, and decrees?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's subjective principles include:That is from a position that God does not exist. The Christian God's existence means there is an objective standard and reference point.That is from a position that Brahman does not exist. Brahman's existence means there is an objective standard and reference point.
I do not believe Brahman is God. I believe the teachings from the two religious beliefs are contrary to each other in many aspects. Logically, one has to be wrong.
So how has Braman revealed himself/herself/itself and how reliable is that testimony? How do Brahman's decrees stack up on our experience? Can we live consistently by these decrees?
Do you believe in Brahman?
Only as a man-made false god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Love God.Unverifiable Qualia. And thought police.It is a choice. You have a volition even if it is in bondage to sin and has the disposition to reject God.Error-slave can only make errors.
I have no idea what point you are making.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You shall not covet your neighbour's goods or possessions.Here come the thought police.Are you saying it is good to desire something that belongs to someone else? It shows a lack of contentment. It can lead to more serious issues, like stealing.The desire to earn money to excess (beyond meeting your basic needs for food, clothing and shelter) is motivated by envy.
It depends on what you do with that money but in many, perhaps most cases, I agree that it leads to greed. It is not money that is evil, it is the love or worship of it that causes evil. God knows we need money to live.
It is impossible to police people's thoughts, and furthermore even if it was possible, it would be a gross violation of personal privacy.
What is this thought police you keep referring to? God knows your thoughts but I don't. I can get an idea of how you think about from what you express to a degree. How is the Bible doing that? It is telling OT Israel directly and us indirectly what is wrong and the consequences of such action. If you choose to ignore the good you contribute to the wrong and there is an accountability to God since we are His creatures, we owe our existence to Him.
A MUCH MORE PRACTICAL LAW would be to say, "Thou shalt not accumulate wealth in excess of your basic needs".
It depends on what you do with what you have. If you reinvest it into creating jobs and wealth for others it is put to use for the good.
This actually squares with a lot of things Jesus taught about the dangers of material wealth. [LINK]
What is the point you want me to glean from this? That you see contradictions in the Bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The question is whether these principles existed before the Hammurabi Code and the biblical logic is of course.If that's true, and it seems very likely that mammalian social instincts did exist before Abraham, then why the heck do we need an old book?
So that God, rather than humans, would express to humanity the code in writing.
And don't get me wrong, I believe there is some basic, fundamental, coherent, scalable, code of human morality, based on primary AXIOMS.But those primary AXIOMS don't seem to be written anywhere in your old book.
The Ten Commandments which Jesus summed up in two. They codify that which God expects of humanity and I think they have a far-reaching effect since even those who do not recognize the Bible as the word of God, or God, live by them to some degree. In most societies, many of these codes of conduct exist. They seem to be universally known or understood. The biblical explanation is that God has put this understanding innately into our very being (humans are moral beings) and however marred we are because of the Fall, we still retain a sense of right and wrong to some extent. The problem is that we no longer rely upon God as the ultimate standard but humanity becomes the measure, thus anything can be passed off as right or good. Instead of an objective, absolute, unchanging standard, without God as the necessary being in revealing such a standard all we have is relativism, a changing standard that loses its identity to subjectivism. Thus morality and oughts become likes and preferences. What is descriptive (I like) becomes what ought to be (You should do - prescriptive).
I invite you to prove otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And make sense of morals without God.Wolves, apes, and meerkats have social norms. So do humans. And we've had them for a very long time.Even before Abraham invented Israel. [LINK]
The question is whether these principles existed before the Hammurabi Code and the biblical logic is of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's universal principles include:It's subjective principles include:
That is from a position that God does not exist. The Christian God's existence means there is an objective standard and reference point.
Love God.Unverifiable Qualia. And thought police.
It is a choice. You have a volition even if it is in bondage to sin and has the disposition to reject God.
Do not worship idols.How is this "universal" when people around the world worship any number of things?
The Christian answer - only God is worthy of worship.
You shall not murder.This is hardly novel. And doesn't do much to explain the different definitions of "murder" around the world.
The Bible makes a distinction between murder and manslaughter. Murder is the intentional taking of innocent life. There are situations where innocent people get harmed like in just wars.
You shall not lie.I think this prohibition existed before Moses.
Yes, it did, but Moses codified it as commanded by God.
You shall not commit adultery.Also not new and also not universal (Droit du seigneur).
Again, the Christian God put the principle into effect in the beginning. The original intent of marriage was with one man and one woman. It was symbolic of our covenant relationship with God, thus sacred.
You shall not covet your neighbour's goods or possessions.Here come the thought police.
Are you saying it is good to desire something that belongs to someone else? It shows a lack of contentment. It can lead to more serious issues, like stealing.
You shall not steal.Unoriginal.
True, most every society and most people understand the principle and why it is wrong. Again, it boils down to do unto others as you would have them do to you along with other principles of love, like protection, rejoicing in truth, and never wishing others harm.
Honour your father and mother.If they deserve it. Clearly not "universal".
Truly it is better that your parents are godly and loving.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your opinion doesn't gain any special significance just because you think it comes from an old book.It does come from an ancient number of books all stating this God exists.Argumentum ad populum.
Unless those are the facts (I.e., they do come from 66 different ancient manuscripts and that is what those manuscripts state).
My opinion gains significance if God exists and I correctly interpret His revelation.(IFF) your hypothetical god is really really realzies (THEN) it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone thinks about it.
Sure it matters. Then it matters whether you believe in this God or not. Then it matters in that God provides the necessary best that morality is based upon. Then it matters whether or not you believe in the one means God has given that reconciles us to Him. And a thousand more things.
And make sense of morals without God.Wolves, apes, and meerkats have social norms. So do humans. And we've had them for a very long time.
They do not debate about moral values but humans do.
Even before Abraham invented Israel. [LINK]
I will look at the link later tonight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We shouldn't have to force anyone. We should be able to build a consensus.Tell that to the Dem's. President Trump is presumed guilt with no legal rights. They are trying to force a conviction on him without sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. They are making it up. They are "pretending" their case is just.Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.
It is an investigation of possible or evident criminal activities. But the person charged with such a crime is usually allowed due process. Not in the case of Trump. How unjust is that? And that they chose the Intell Committee to conduct the hearings, selected all the witnesses, would not bring in the one witness who started the process and hid the original questioning behind closed doors until they could find some hearsay and presumptions that they liked.
The Intell Committee has far more important matters to deal with that are being ignored, but what do the Dems have to show for their year in office? What laws have they passed? What about the USMCA? What have the Dems done that is good for the country? They want to undo a duly elected president and ignore 63 million votes.
The house "verdict" is 100% inconsequential.
No, I disagree but hopefully, we will find out. My fear is that if the Democrats win back power their wrongful actions will be swept under the proverbial rug. I see this as a race to see who will expose who first. I feel that the Dems are making up fictitious charges to obscure the crimes they are guilty of.
Now I say all this not because I am an American citizen but because as goes America so goes the rest of the world. I watch from the outside as an interested spectator. I realize the importance of it because I understand that your country is important to a somewhat freer world. The alternatives do not look promising. And I also see socialism and leftist ideology as the ruination of a country.
The president is not a victim.
We will see. What has he done that is impeachable??? I would like you on record so I can remind you later.
I think liberals and those supporting the Dems will be surprised when the truth comes out in the wash. But my fear is they will still vote Democrat. They won't care that they were lied to for four years and the media was complicit in one of the biggest propaganda schemes and coverups in your countries history. And all those promises of free everything only comes with a price tag of what - some are pushing for as much as 94 trillion dollars. Good luck with that!
If you cared one tenth as much about the presumed guilt of the average person spending time in jail awaiting trial, I might agree with you on that.
Innocent people paying for a frameup is a disgusting injustice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We shouldn't have to force anyone. We should be able to build a consensus.Shouldn't? 'Shouldn't' implies a moral ought.The counter-statement "we should have to force everyone" strongly suggests an intellectual deficit.If you can't convince people to follow your social framework, it would seem prudent to modify your social framework.
Laws do that. As a Christian, I would argue some laws are unjust.
All you have is a moral preference.Based on an understanding of basic human instinct.
Again, what makes your instincts right especially from an evolutionary framework?
Why, if moral values are made up and I don't like yours?Then we should figure out if either party has perhaps misunderstood the other.
That is if you can get the other party to agree.
And if you don't want to comply with my moral preference and I have the ability I am going to force you because of the other alternative in a world devoid of moral absolutes.I disagree that your ability to force compliance constitutes "moral absolutes".
I'm speaking of a world devoid of those absolutes.
The other alternative in such a world could be that we follow yours and I don't want to.
Moral absolutes mean there is a right, a fixed value that should be followed. If I put myself in your worldview position, which I do with these scenarios, my incentive to follow something I do not like is only made possible because of a few reasons. One, I don't think it is important enough to fight for my viewpoint. Two, I do not have the strength or means to do so. Three, I am willing to compromise. You could supply other reasons but why would I support something I disagreed with unless I was forced to do so?
You're merely promoting MOBSTER ETHICS.
You or me or someone else, that is my choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's not necessarily "pretend". Most of our basic ideas of human ethics are instinctive.If there is no absolute, objective, ultimate, unchanging standard what do you have to go on?Human instinct and intellectual consensus (social contract).
Intellectual consensus. Consider yourself lucky that you live in the USA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's not necessarily "pretend". Most of our basic ideas of human ethics are instinctive.If there is no absolute, objective, ultimate, unchanging standard what do you have to go on?(1) PROTECT YOURSELF(2) PROTECT YOUR CLOSE FRIENDS AND FAMILY(3) PROTECT YOUR TERRITORY
Then when others do the same against you, what is wrong with that? Dictators or oligarchs are quite often very dangerous people for they have control of power and they want more.
Let's make up a scenario. When you are subverted by President Xi and his system of governance what is wrong with that? Could that happen? It could depend on what the leader is willing to do in his quest for world dominance for China and the resolve of those who stand against him. China is building its military. It wants to be #1 economically as well as militarily. If you are not Chinese, could your rights be suppressed in such a scenario? All you have to do is look at China now for the likely answer. Look at Hong Kong. Look at the Chineses government's acquisition of cyber-technology and its crackdown of dissidents. Meanwhile, the Intell Committee is laser-focused on Trump. The crazy thing, IMO, is there are some who want to vote Democrat and turn the USA into a social state where "big government" thinks for you and where due process is denied. What injustice, but that is from a Christian standpoint where there is a necessary fixed, universal moral best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Because we most likely agree on the fundamentals.We may or we may not, such as in the case of abortion.We agree that abortion is undesirable.
Now, why is that? Do you believe abortion kills an innocent human being? Do you believe all human beings have the basic right to life?
I believe abortion in most cases is a despicable moral wrong and an act of selfishness in many cases.
We disagree about whether or not personal-privacy is sacrosanct.
I believe it is UNTIL it affects the life of another innocent human being.
What is good about us agreeing? It just means we like the same preferences. What is good about that?It means we can cooperate with each other.
Why is that good rather than just a preference? Hitler preferred to kill 11 million undesirables. He had others cooperate with him. Does that mean it was 'good?'
Hitler's Germany liked to kill Jews. They passed laws that made Jews less than citizens. You may not like it but many of them did. So what makes that bad?(IFF) you believe that human suffering and exploitation are undesirable (THEN) autocratic governments (MOBSTER ETHICS) are undesirable.
Apparently Nazi Germany overrode such thinking in regards to exploitation and suffering for the "greater good' of the society as they thought good. They wanted to weed out the weakest links and create a purer society as they thought it to be. The question is why are there so many of these autocratic, totalitarian governments throughout history and in our current age? It appears that not everyone thinks such regimes are a bad thing.
Unless you can point to a fixed moral standard that says such a system is wrong why are their systems wrong or bad? They do not appear to think that exploitation or suffering is bad but a means to an end. It is just your opinion versus theirs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody is suggesting it's "better" than yours, but I suspect we can find some consensus.Not for a Hitler or Kim Jong-un like figure. Not for a totalitarian regime or dictatorship.You're proving my point. We apparently agree on this.
If you lived in those societies and had a view contrary to the leader do you think you would be able to find some consensus?
The population under totalitarian regimes or dictators would include a massive number of people. Do you think you will be able to reason with them?Yes.
Maybe you should be the ambassador to North Korea then. Try reasoning both with Kim Jong-un and the North Korean people. Somehow I think you would be treated similar to Otto Warmbier.
Or maybe you could change the situation in Venezuela?
How about speaking truth to power in China or Russia?
How do you feel you will fare in Iran?
Now, what makes their system worse or better than yours?(IFF) you believe that human suffering and exploitation are undesirable (THEN) autocratic governments (MOBSTER ETHICS) are undesirable.
Sure I believe that regarding such totalitarian or tyrannical systems. My worldview supports such a view. Yours if it is agnostic or atheistic does not. Many of these systems are atheistic or materialistic/naturalistic. An atheistic, IMO, does not have the means to do so when the nuts and bolts of its core presuppositions are exposed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
AXIOLOGY.How does studying the nature of values determine the good if 'good' is all relative and subjective preference?All value-judgments are relative to the individual.
Not if the source referenced is an objective, universally true, and unchanging moral value. That would be a source outside the individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Thog is my personal lord and savior. Emphasis on personal.If Thog has anything to say to you, Thog will contact you personally. Emphasis on personally.So, you are not justifying Thog as reasonable. Without further proof, I have no idea of how Thog corresponds to what is, what is necessary, or what should be the case.Thog is defined as personal.To expect extrapersonal evidence of a personal entity is illogical.
You are very lucky, some might even say privileged for Thog to speak to you.
So what has Thog said to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Sure, but why should I think your stances on moral issues are any better than any other, especially those that contradict your views? If there are no absolute, objective, unchanging standards and reference point what makes yours any better than mine or a contrary view?When it comes to morality, there are no "absolute, objective, unchanging standards" or "reference points", nor are there any "better" or "worse" moral stances. Morals are simply the "dos" and "don'ts" that a person, a group, or a society form and adhere to.
Then your moral outrage is not justified when someone cuts in line in from of you or decides your group or class is subhuman or is ruled a non-citizen, or decides to eliminate you. It is just someone who can impose their preferences on you. What is wrong with that? Just because you don't like it?
Explain to me how feeling pain is a moral value. It describes what is, not what ought to be.Humans have empathy. That is, we have the ability to feel what others are feeling and relate to them.
And some don't care what others feel. What do feelings have to do with morality? I like ice-cream. You should like it too. Those are my feelings. What makes those feelings moral oughts or something you should do? It is just personal tastes. Generally speaking from personal observation, in an atheistic or agnostic worldview were morality is built upon feelings since most I have spoken to do not believe in moral objective morals, only the fallacious logic of right makes might.
When another person is hurt, we wince, because we can imagine what they might be going through.
Some do, others have there conscious seared and don't care unless it becomes personal.
We do this because we know they can feel pain.
Most do, but there are some people who are incapable of feeling pain.
For example, if an child was born into a household where the parents abused them (locked them into their rooms, deprived them of food, beat them, etc.), the parents would be immoral (to many people) because they would be causing unnecessary pain and suffering to the child.
So do you believe that harming children is an objective, universal moral wrong, or is this too subjective? If so, then you are inconsistent with a subjective moral outlook.
We can feel what the child is going through (of no fault of their own), and since we know the child can feel pain, many people would call the parents immoral. Animals can feel pain as well, so causing unnecessary suffering to them would, with empathy in consideration, be immoral.
Animals do feel pain and I agree that treating animals cruelly is morally wrong.
Do you think you feel any healthier for your choice? Does it make you more alert or give you clarity of thought?There is a slight improvement, but the meat cravings hit hard.
(^8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Very true. You bring up some good points. We have to eat. We should treat animals in a humane way, not a cruel way, yet we as humans have dominion over animals. Not only this but do you think we could feed the whole of humanity solely on vegetation? My justification for eating meat is that God has given us permission to eat animals instead of just vegetation? This gets into a wholly different topic, God's existence. So I have reasons for why I believe it is okay to eat meat.My point isn’t to debate the merits and flaws of a vegetarian/vegan diet vs. an omnivorous one. It’s to highlight the fact that people have different stances on moral issues, such as whether or not we should be killing animals for meat.
Sure, but why should I think your stances on moral issues are any better than any other, especially those that contradict your views? If there are no absolute, objective, unchanging standards and reference point what makes yours any better than mine or a contrary view?
As for immoral, do you think animals think in terms of morality or is that completely a human function?According to those arguing for vegetarianism/veganism, animals certainly deserve to be considered with morals in mind. Why? Because they can feel pain and suffering, and causing unnecessary suffering to beings that can feel pain is inherently immoral.
Explain to me how feeling pain is a moral value. It describes what is, not what ought to be.
PS. Are you a vegetarian?I’ve been on and off of vegetarianism for the past few months, but I’ll admit that I’m not planning to be a vegetarian/vegan, at least not yet.
Do you think you feel any healthier for your choice? Does it make you more alert or give you clarity of thought?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We can believe in all kinds of things without justifying them or without them being reasonable. Do they correspond to what is, what is necessary, or what should be the case? Make your case.Thog is my personal lord and savior. Emphasis on personal.If Thog has anything to say to you, Thog will contact you personally. Emphasis on personally.
So, you are not justifying Thog as reasonable. Without further proof, I have no idea of how Thog corresponds to what is, what is necessary, or what should be the case.
The Bible is a written revelation that corresponds to what is in many instances (people, places, events), what is necessary, and what should be the case to know something moral objectively and its true identity.
It's universal principles include:
Love God.
Do not worship idols.
You shall not murder.
You shall not lie.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not covet your neighbour's goods or possessions.
You shall not steal.
Honour your father and mother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We pretend that one qualitative value is good as opposed to another.It's not necessarily "pretend". Most of our basic ideas of human ethics are instinctive.
If there is no absolute, objective, ultimate, unchanging standard what do you have to go on?
We make it up and force others to adopt our view...We shouldn't have to force anyone. We should be able to build a consensus.
Shouldn't? 'Shouldn't' implies a moral ought. All you have is a moral preference. Why, if moral values are made up and I don't like yours? And if you don't want to comply with my moral preference and I have the ability I am going to force you because of the other alternative in a world devoid of moral absolutes.
...or we conform to some other subjective view because we are forced to,We shouldn't have to force anyone. We should be able to build a consensus.
Tell that to the Dem's. President Trump is presumed guilt with no legal rights. They are trying to force a conviction on him without sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. They are making it up. They are "pretending" their case is just.
...even though we do not think it meets our criterion of the good.Your opinion doesn't gain any special significance just because you think it comes from an old book.
It does come from an ancient number of books all stating this God exists. My opinion gains significance if God exists and I correctly interpret His revelation.
And make sense of morals without God.
My opinion doesn't gain any special significance just because I think it comes from an old book.
Your right, it does not if the revelation is untrue. It is just as relative and subjective as any other. But you are left with making sense of why your moral position is good without a fixed identity for goodness.
And again, what is necessary for morality to be anything other than subjective opinion and feelings? And if it is subjective, why are your subjective feelings or preferences something I should follow if I don't like them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Meaningfulness is derived from Qualitative Experience.Defined by whom?AXIOLOGY.
How does studying the nature of values determine the good if 'good' is all relative and subjective preference?
Why is your qualitative idea and experience of what is 'good' better than mine,Nobody is suggesting it's "better" than yours, but I suspect we can find some consensus.
Not for a Hitler or Kim Jong-un like figure. Not for a totalitarian regime or dictatorship. The population under totalitarian regimes or dictators would include a massive number of people. Do you think you will be able to reason with them? Now, what makes their system worse or better than yours?
...or why should I adopt it if all qualitative values are relative and subjective?Because we most likely agree on the fundamentals.
We may or we may not, such as in the case of abortion. What is good about us agreeing? It just means we like the same preferences. What is good about that? Hitler's Germany liked to kill Jews. They passed laws that made Jews less than citizens. You may not like it but many of them did. So what makes that bad?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ultimately, with your worldview, this existence is all meaningless.Meaningfulness is derived from Qualitative Experience.
Defined by whom? Why is your qualitative idea and experience of what is 'good' better than mine, or why should I adopt it if all qualitative values are relative and subjective?
If you really believe that life without your hypothetical god is meaningless, then I pity you.
What I believe is without the acknowledgement of God you and I live inconsistently. We pretend that one qualitative value is good as opposed to another. We make it up and force others to adopt our view or we conform to some other subjective view because we are forced to, even though we do not think it meets our criterion of the good.
Good thing I believe in Thog, because if you don't have the love of Thog in your heart, your entire existence (along with your friends and family) is meaningless.
Bully for you!
We can believe in all kinds of things without justifying them or without them being reasonable. Do they correspond to what is, what is necessary, or what should be the case? Make your case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps the following video example explains it even better than my last two links that gave examples:Necessity: The argument against necessity is an appeal to ignorance, because we cannot know if our universe is necessary or not (missing variables).
That is why it is necessary that the necessary Being has revealed that we can know. Without Him, we are left to our own limited existence in a sea of relativism and uncertainty.
Chance: The argument against chance is also an appeal to ignorance, because we cannot know if our universe is likely or not (sample of one).
The argument for chance happenstance is the consequence of one of two possibilities; either the universe is here by intent (thus, intentional Being) or it is here by accident, by mere chance. Either way, you start with one of these presuppositions. Christianity and Judaism go one step further in they identify this intentional Being.
Design: The argument for design is also an appeal to ignorance, because we cannot know if our universe is "designed" or not (missing variables).
The argument from design is more reasonable (reasoning only comes from mindful beings) in that it signifies intelligence behind the universe. We see all kinds of clues, of which I gave you three links that demonstrate some of these (mindful) designs if you come from the intentional approach to existence. Some things are just more reasonable and likely than others.
Again, what would be necessary for you to know?
Again, you have a vested interest in your side of things. You hold a bias that can't make sense of the universe for it does not have the means to do so. All your reason and knowing boil down to blind indifferent chance as your maker if you deny God. Thus, you do not believe you are ultimately accountable, yet you live your life as though you are. You continually show inconsistencies in what you do. Inconsistencies speak of irrationality. Something is not quite right with such thinking.
The only rational approach is to acknowledge our epistemological limits.
And where does that leave you - with ignorance!
Again, which worldview makes a better sense of our existence? Which one explains intelligence, reason, person, morality, existence?
BUT MY POINT IS THAT EVEN IFF IT IS DESIGNED, THAT CHANGES NOTHING AND INFORMS NO ASPECT OF HUMAN ETHICS.
Then why debate it? You have made up your mind. How can I convince you otherwise? Ultimately, with your worldview, this existence is all meaningless. Again, you live inconsistently by creating meaning. IT DOESN'T MATTER. Or does it? (^8
Why are you continually inconsistent with blind, indifferent, random, chance happenstance?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How can your god be considered all-powerful if humans can violate god's will?Because His will permits it for a time and for a purpose.Then those actions must be part of god's plan and therefore NOT in violation of god's will.
Yes, He planned to create a creature - the human - who would have volition, the ability to choose to do what the creature wanted and desired to do. God did this so that perhaps the creature would one day choose to seek God out and know His love. God has shown, through human history, that the human lacks the wisdom and knowledge to choose what is right and just and good in and of themselves. That is the witness of history, humanity's inhumanity, and thus history points to God as the answer. We, as humans continually demonstrate that we cannot solve our own problems. We get in the way of doing what is good.
Thus, God allows evil for a time and for a purpose. He knew that a being with its own volition would choose evil and mar the good. He allows us to do our own thing that it will present the problem that humanity cannot solve without God. Thus, He allowed Adam and Eve to sin and disobey His good, pleasing, and just command. From that day, He withdrew His presence and distances Himself from the intimate relationship and learning with Him. He stepped back and allowed humanity to do its own thing, to know evil by what they did.
But God also continued to present a witness of Himself to people not only in what had been made, the universe and the creatures, the macros and the micros, but also by selecting a people (Israel) to make Himself known to the world through. He created a redemptive thread from Genesis to Revelation that pointed to (and back to) a point in history where God would provide the means of reconciling the world once against to Himself, that we could once again learn from Him and enjoy that intimate relationship.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps the following video example explains it even better than my last two links that gave examples:In other words, DEISM.
The Christian God is knowable, although not comprehensibly so but in so much as He has revealed Himself to our limited minds.
The only morality we can derive from DEISM is "whatever is possible is permitted".
That is a description of atheism where the standard is relativism and subjectivism. It is what a subjective individual or collect makes it.
Atheism lacks the means to distinguish better because there is no best to compare better to, just subjective likes and dislikes that do not qualify qualitatively. Logically, the "good" has no permanent identity, no fixed reference point.
A truly intelligent designer would make "sin" impossible.
Then there would be no freedom of will but we would all be robots programmed and determined by our designer. Yet God lovingly gave us a will so that we could choose knowing full well that it would create evil and do wrong, yet also knowing that when we cry out against the injustice we have created and committed, when we come to the end of ourselves as the answer and our 'autonomous self' in control of our own destinies, arrogant, proud, full of ourselves, there is a better way to those who reach out for and seek out God and look for what is truly better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The argument is that if all morality is subjective it would be relative. It would not have a fixed, universal measure. Simple as that.Please demonstrate this fixed, universal measure of morality.
How could I ever do that to your satisfaction? I learned a long time ago that you can't convince someone against their will.
I can and have given you reasonable and logical arguments.
I have explained the idea of a Necessary Being. I have explained that the biblical God is revealed as omniscient, unchanging, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and eternal. Those qualities or attributes are what are necessary for a fixed universal measure.
And if you're going to insist on "love" as your primary moral AXIOM, there are an awful lot of rules you're going to have to change.
Such as?
Not to mention that every single element of your definition of "love" is pure Qualia.
The biblical God as a necessary being would be the standard. Only if/because He has revealed Himself and given us an example could/do we have a reference point. His nature reveals the extent of His love and justice.
Love is patient - God is patient with us. We are given many chances.
Love is kind - it keeps no record of wrongs for those in Christ Jesus for He has met the standard God requires.
Love is not arrogant or boastful.
Love does not take into account a wrong suffered - God forgive in Christ Jesus but since He is just (a just judge cannot overlook a wrong. He would not be a good judge to wink at evil) wrongful actions are also addressed, either in our own merit or in the merit of Another.
Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness - hence, we all come before the judgment of God for our actions and life choices. Our wrongful actions are either paid for by us or by Another. Thus, justice is met.
Love rejoices with the truth - Jesus Christ is the truth. Finding truth sets you free from error. Error cloaks you in falsity. Jesus said that a human being builds their life on one of two foundations. Your starting presuppositions of either God or chance happenstance are important to how you build your worldview in how it makes sense of existence or is unable to do so.
Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things - with God's love I can endure life's hardships. I know they are only temporary.
Love protects, and it seeks the best - Jesus protects me from my own self. He guides me in times of trouble.
Love is just - How will God not do good? He allows us for a time to do our own thing but eventually, we are accountable. Hitler does not get a free licence in which all the injustice he is responsible for is not punished and answered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Please stop appealing to emotion and give me an argument.
The argument is that if all morality is subjective it would be relative. It would not have a fixed, universal measure. Simple as that.
My way of viewing morality is correct. Me not being able to criticize others isn't required for what is true.
How can two opposing and contrary views on the same moral position both logically be true?
Make it short like before without using your feelings as in Hitler bad but you can't say he is bad if I act on moral nihilism.
What Hitler did was well documented and the methods and steps he used to achieve his aims were also well documented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
An "intentional" cosmos is indistinguishable from an "unintentional" cosmos.Outwardly, perhaps? Yet, we keep discovering law or principles that explain things about our existence yet are mind-dependent of just us. We find meaning out there which is inconsistent with chance happenstance.Like what exactly?
Perhaps the following video example explains it even better than my last two links that gave examples:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Morality is whatever anyone chooses it to be. There is no way to objectively get to a moral good. Please see the is and ought distinction if you are not sure on this.
Then it is all relative. It is all based on feelings. Hitler liked to kill Jews. It is not really a moral good but he thought so. So, you as a moral relativist may not like it but who are you to criticize others? If you as a moral relativist can't justify good as having a fixed identity then each to his own.
Such a position as this can be thought of but it can't be lived practically especially if it was you in a line to the showers in a Nazi death camp. Then you would know some things are definitely evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
My attention was called specifically to this thread, but please don't make a big thing about that.You can expect to see that reminder or another like it more often. I assume people want to see that moderators take their reports seriously, and without deleting or otherwise censoring posts, it's a gentle way to encourage course correction for increased civility.And yes, users are still talked to privately.
Okay, thanks! I was wondering whether it was something specific I had done since it came after my post. I was searching to think about what that was. I decided to check other threads and could not find other general warnings. I went back into this thread before I realized what was possibly the answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I think Ragnar meant it as a preemptive reminder to everyone, considering that this type of discussion, by nature, has a greater possibility of resulting in personal attacks.Ah! I looked on a couple of other threads and could not find the warning. Thus, I was wondering if someone on this thread said something inappropriate?
I was wondering if it was in regard to Post #389? If so, thanks!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
***General reminder, you may critique someone, without jumping immediately into personal attacks.-Ragnar, deputy moderator***
I'm not following whether this is directed to someone on this particular thread or whether you are posting this on every thread as a reminder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I see. So when god said "adulterers will be executed" they meant, you know, not "immediately"...The people did not follow the law. Moses permitted a certificate of divorce even though they knew that in the beginning, God created them to be united until death in marriage.Great. Are you suggesting that because Moses violated god's law by allowing divorce that makes it ok for EVERYONE to violate god's law both now and forever?
No, I am suggesting that God warned the people by sending prophets and teachers of the consequences and they ignored Him until He reached the point where they had heaped their sins to the maximum.
Matthew 23:32 (NASB)
32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.
1 Thessalonians 2:15-16
15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.
32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.
15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.
Did god ever make an official retraction of that "kill adulterers" law?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I see. So when god said "adulterers will be executed" they meant, you know, not "immediately"...The people did not follow the law. Moses permitted a certificate of divorce even though they knew that in the beginning, God created them to be united until death in marriage.Great. Are you suggesting that because Moses violated god's law by allowing divorce that makes it ok for EVERYONE to violate god's law both now and forever?
No.
Did god ever make an official retraction of that "kill adulterers" law?
Stoning was part of the Old Covenant or Law of Moses. My understanding of it is that adultery is the principle that is absolutely unacceptable in both covenants yet the Mosaic covenant dealt with it or was meant to deal with it by stoning as the punishment. Adultery is a very intimate form of sexual immorality. Jesus likened it to looking after a woman lustfully. The principle of adultery is in the cheating on God by Israel in the OT as well as by a man or woman cheating on their spouse. For Christians, it separates us from our union with God also in that we also put an idol before Him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Who made the humans change their minds?They do, we do. They/we have volition. They/we are not robots.How can your god be considered all-powerful if humans can violate god's will?
Because His will permits it for a time and for a purpose.
How can your god be considered all-knowing if humans can force them to change their plans?
For them? Who is them? Do you mean Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Humans do not force God to change His mind. Being omniscient would mean you could not thwart God's plans. Being omnipotent means that nothing that is logical is difficult for Him.
Is your god incapable of perfectly predicting human behavior?
Prophecy proves otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
An "intentional" cosmos is indistinguishable from an "unintentional" cosmos.Outwardly, perhaps? Yet, we keep discovering law or principles that explain things about our existence yet are mind-dependent of just us. We find meaning out there which is inconsistent with chance happenstance.Like what exactly?
Principles that we express in mathematical formulas such as e = mc2 or laws of gravity, motion, inertia, friction, etc. That we can express so many things in precise mathematical formulas is an indication there is a mind behind the universe rather than chaotic chance happenstance since our minds did not create but discovered such principles. Gravity does not depend on us believing it is a sustaining force in our universe we can express in a mathematical formula.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There are zero implications either way.There are all kinds of consequences if our universe is created and God is its Maker.Like what exactly? And let's stick strictly to the "intentional" versus "unintentional" comparisons please.
The implications/consequences are being separated from God for eternity.
Skipping directly to your personal favorite hypothetical god is out-of-scope.
There is only one true God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nevertheless, that takes the argument back to another step. That step is still, whether the universe is created or it is here because of chance happenstance.It makes no difference if everything was "created" "intentionally" or not.
It makes all the difference as to making sense of existence.
An "intentional" cosmos is indistinguishable from an "unintentional" cosmos.
Outwardly, perhaps? Yet, we keep discovering law or principles that explain things about our existence yet are mind-dependent of just us. We find meaning out there which is inconsistent with chance happenstance.
There are zero implications either way.
There are all kinds of consequences if our universe is created and God is its Maker.
This renders the distinction MOOT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You either operate by a naturalistic system of thought or a supernaturalistic system of thought as your grounding principle or core belief that other beliefs revolve around and are built upon.When you say "supernaturalistic" are you suggesting you believe in some kind of Substance-Dualism?
God is Spirit. That is different from a physical body. It is intangible.
Christians believe we have a spirit, and soul, something that makes us who we are that is different from everyone else and that something is not physical, not tangible. Our minds are different from our brains.
You as a materialist or naturalist would more than likely believe the mind is the brain, that everything is physical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The actual law of god says, "if you violate the marriage covenant, both violators are to be killed".The purpose of the law was to show how holy God was and how seriously the covenant they entered into was to be taken.So are you suggesting that your hypothetical god's law is not really supposed to be treated as a regular law, it's more like a metaphor?
No, what I am suggesting is that there are principles that apply to all human beings and there are situations and laws that God made with particular people (Israel) during a particular time in history (ANE) that reflected these principles but were specific to these people and to ANE customs to an extent. The 613 Mosaic laws tie into the principles of the Ten Commandments but they were also imposed to showcase how pure and holy God is. Since sin separates humanity from His presence God demonstrated this by these laws of cleanliness and purity. To enter God's presence required Israel to be without sin by paying for their sins with a sacrifice, purifying and cleansing themselves of sin. The animal sacrifices could never take away sin but only cover it until a point in time when God provided the ultimate sacrifice that would take sin away and restore humanity to a right relationship with God for all those who would believe in it.
The covenant God made with Israel was symbolic of marriage. Symbolically, God became their husband and they became His wife. Thus God gave us an example of how He wants us to be within our marriages. It is a sacred covenant. Sin keeps us from being that way, thus God created a consequence for impurity in marriage with Israel. We, as Christians no longer live under that covenant. Jesus fulfilled it for us. He remained faithful to God on behalf of the believer. We Christians live under a better covenant. We no longer stone those who are unfaithful to the marriage covenant but we understand the significance of remaining committed to our marriage partners. We understand the wrong and how it hurts others and kills a relationship.
Even in OT times Moses and the leaders did not always live up to the requirements of the law. Hence, the Day of Atonement. And since the offence is towards God He has a right to hold us/them accountable and yet since He is ultimately the offended party, He has a right to forgive us and offer us mercy. That mercy is given in Jesus Christ. He meets the righteous requirements of God and also pays the penalty for sin - separation from God. Every OT sacrifice and feast day is a typology of and points towards Him.
So, for a while, God ignored the offence that Israel committed against Him with their adultery and idolatry. He was gracious to them for a time until their sins were heaped up to the limit of God's patience. Then He brought judgment. Moses' letter of divorce only put a bandaid on the wrong, it did not remove it. It did not bring justice to the wrong. It did not meet the prescribed manner of the law.
Jesus met the righteous requirements of the Law of Moses.
But, as Jesus put the law of Moses and the Ten Commandments down to two, love God and love your neighbour. Love covers a multitude of sins. We witness God's love for His people in that He was patient with them.
All you're doing is proving that your hypothetical god constantly changes its mind.God did not change His mind, human's changed their minds.Who made the humans change their minds?
They do, we do. They/we have volition. They/we are not robots.
God does permit us to do our thing, for a season. Eventually, we are all accountable.I see. So when god said "adulterers will be executed" they meant, you know, not "immediately"...
The people did not follow the law. Moses permitted a certificate of divorce even though they knew that in the beginning, God created them to be united until death in marriage. It was a symbol of a greater truth, our unity and union with God as believers. Jesus has followed the law on our behalf that our sins are not imputed to us but instead His righteousness. That is the great exchange that took place on the cross and imputed to those who believe along with a changed nature towards God, a love for Him instead of either ignorance or denial of Him. That is why Jesus said, "you must be born again," regenerated, changed and transformed in our disposition towards God by His Spirit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Look, if you want to call a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus a CITIZEN, then everyone must register with the state every single time they copulate.Again the question is what is being killed? Is it a human being? What do you say???By definition, the STATE can only protect CITIZENS.
No, it can protect every human being. If someone enters the USA who is not a citizen does that person/human being still deserve to be protected like every citizen or can the citizens do whatever they want with that person/human being?
Now, what is being killed? Is the unborn a human being?
As for your analogy of copulation, only when the result is the conception of a new human life should the moral aspects apply.Look, I'm perfectly willing to consider a blastocyst a CITIZEN, but if that blastocyst DIES then we must send someone to PRISON.I'm not willing to let a single blastocyst die, EVAR, and neither are you. So make sure to submit your copulation reports on time.
Sex without conception does not result in the different stages of human growth. It is only when conception takes place and a new, living human being exists that intentionally killing it matters. You can't kill something that does not exist. So, a person's sexual reports do not have to be submitted. That is a private matter and is no concern until conception takes place. Then another human being needs to be taken into consideration.
So, what is being killed? You list difference stages of growth. Of what? Is it a human being?
It matters morally, if all human beings are intrinsically valuable and deserve to the treated equally. Do you believe that should be the case? If not, then there is no such thing as justice for not everyone is treated equally. Law ceases to justice if some are treated with more value than others because of who they are rather than because of what they are. The most basic human right is the right to life.
Created: