Quantcast

Is it possible to adhere to the Law of Moses, yet still be a Christian following the precepts of Christ?

sonofason 2012/09/18 22:51:54
Related Topics: Christian, Christ, Law
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • gracious43 2013/04/25 14:50:39
    gracious43
    No. Christians are commanded to meet on Sunday. Jews worship on the Sabbath. Jews are commanded to keep the Passover. Christians are commanded to keep the Lord's supper.

    The fact of the matter is, neither can Jews adhere to the Law of Moses. There were rituals they were commanded to perform, in the temple (or tabernacle). However God destroyed the temple in 70 CE.

    Galatians 3:10
    But those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God’s Book of the Law.”
  • David Hussey 2013/04/23 04:15:14
    David Hussey
    No, I would say that the principles of forgiveness and love espoused by Christ are in direct and irreconcilable conflict with Moses' Law.
  • sonofason David H... 2013/04/23 04:20:45
  • David H... sonofason 2013/04/23 06:44:24
    David Hussey
    +1
    Why didn't he stone her as commanded by Moses' Law? As well as whoever she was bonking, for both adulterous parties should be put to death according to Moses' Law Your very example quite nicely demonstrates the very kind of contradiction I'm speaking of. Or are you saying that Jesus was the "Do as I say, not as I do" sort of fellow?
  • Beat Magnum True Hero 2012/09/19 13:52:09
    Beat Magnum True Hero
    +1
    I don't think it could hurt, but I really like bacon.
  • Red 2012/09/19 07:49:17
  • FortunaVeritas 2012/09/19 05:20:31
    FortunaVeritas
    I suppose, though there's no real point in keeping kosher if you believe Paul to have had anything to do with Christianity. Honestly not sure if it's possible to adhere to the Law of Moses without the Temple intact.
  • Christopher Kirchen 2012/09/19 03:37:08
    Christopher Kirchen
    +1
    Christ fulfilled the law of Moses so in that sense, yes.
  • Dryth 2012/09/19 00:56:51
    Dryth
    No, I don't think it is possible. The viewpoints are too contradictory.
  • Gregaj7 2012/09/19 00:28:29
    Gregaj7
    +1
    Read Matthew 22:37-39. That'll answer your question.
  • sonofason Gregaj7 2012/09/19 01:36:49
  • Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥ 2012/09/18 23:21:36
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    +1
    If you mean the Ten Commandments, Yes.
    If you mean the Civil Law, No. Because Israel lost it's autonomy when it fell to other world powers, such as the Romans.
    If you mean the laws of ordinances, No. Because there is no Jewish Temple or Priesthood.
  • sonofason Dave Sa... 2012/09/18 23:29:04
  • Dave Sa... sonofason 2012/09/18 23:50:29
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    +1
    They must obey Christ, the giver of the Law, whether they rebuild a temple or not. They will have to re-receive the priesthood and be instructed in the temple ordinances. There ARE current temple ordinances being performed, just not Jewish ones.

    temples
  • Truth Matters 2012/09/18 23:13:25
    Truth Matters
    +1
    I don't think anyone can completely adhere to the Law of Moses.

    One can respect and honor the Law of Moses
  • Fanghur Truth M... 2013/04/23 03:33:18 (edited)
    Fanghur
    +3
    Bah! No thanks, I'll stick with what is actually moral, thank you very much.
  • sonofason Fanghur 2013/04/23 04:01:41
  • Fanghur sonofason 2013/04/23 04:10:38
    Fanghur
    +1
    Then the bible is not the word of God, invalidating your entire theology.
  • sonofason Fanghur 2013/04/23 04:15:14
  • Truth M... Fanghur 2013/04/24 14:53:17 (edited)
    Truth Matters
    +1
    "No thanks, I'll stick with what is actually moral"

    What is ACTUALLY moral - consistent with atheism? That requires an objective moral reality. You cannot ground any objective moral reality with atheism, yet you now claim it exists?

    Checkmate - once again. Of course, here comes your dishonesty, deflection and obfuscation. You will not provide an objective basis to ground any moral reality. That's established fact.
  • Fanghur Truth M... 2013/04/24 19:14:12
    Fanghur
    +2
    Checkmate nothing, because as I have already demonstrated on numerous occasions, what you are asking for is a logically incoherent concept. Morality doesn't exist if there are no minds (i.e. creatures) around to develop moral systems, in the exact same way that language doesn't exist if there aren't any intelligent species to create it, or logic, or emotions, or feelings, or pain,. They are all entirely contingent on our existence for their own 'existence', for lack of a better word.

    You can ramble on about your own pathetic attempt to argue that atheists are immoral all you want, because you have no moral high ground arguing your own might makes right mentality.
  • Truth M... Fanghur 2013/04/24 20:58:19 (edited)
    Truth Matters
    +1
    As predicted, you failed to answer again while kicking up dust to obfuscate your failure.

    "What is ACTUALLY moral - consistent with atheism? That presupposes an objective moral reality. You cannot ground any objective moral reality with atheism, yet you now claim it exists?"

    You even lied twice again in typical fashion. I never claimed atheists are necessarily immoral - only serious atheists. In fact, I claimed most atheists recognize a moral reality, but cannot ground it in reality.

    I never claimed might makes right. This is just another lie you fabricated - and I have twice defeated.

    You sure lie with ease. Do you have a conscience?

    "They are all entirely contingent on our existence for their own 'existence', for lack of a better word."

    Really? Raping children can only be 'wrong' you exist to think it is wrong? Raping children wouldn't be wrong if you were not here to think it?

    You are totally lost atheist. RIGHT and WRONG PRESUPPOSES an objective moral reality apart from our subjective opinions. You cannot be wrong if there is no actual (objective) right or wrong to be wrong about.


    Here comes more avoidance, obfuscation and lies. You are boring Andrew.
  • Fanghur Truth M... 2013/04/24 21:49:20 (edited)
    Fanghur
    +2
    Yes you do claim that might makes right, because what I define as might makes right is basing your entire morality on the arbitrary view/nature of only one mind (i.e. god) regardless of whether the many other minds agree with it or not, rather than based on the collective input of many independent minds in order to decide upon a system that is agreeable to the greatest possible number of people. That is fundamentally identical to, or at least no better than, might makes right. Fred Phelps would pat your feathered back.

    I am a serious atheist, and I am perfectly moral by the humanistic (i.e. nearly universally agreed upon) definition of morality, that being the reduction of needless suffering.

    "Really? Raping children can only be 'wrong' you exist to think it is wrong? Raping children wouldn't be wrong if you were not here to think it?"

    That is an absolutely meaningless question. If no children or people existed, then no children could be raped. And if no children or people existed then obviously 'raping children' wouldn't be immoral because the words 'raping children' and 'immoral' would not only not exist, but would have absolutely no meaning. Think then speak, Truth, don't speak without thinking.

    "RIGHT and WRONG PRESUPPOSES an objective moral reality apart from our subjective o...





    Yes you do claim that might makes right, because what I define as might makes right is basing your entire morality on the arbitrary view/nature of only one mind (i.e. god) regardless of whether the many other minds agree with it or not, rather than based on the collective input of many independent minds in order to decide upon a system that is agreeable to the greatest possible number of people. That is fundamentally identical to, or at least no better than, might makes right. Fred Phelps would pat your feathered back.

    I am a serious atheist, and I am perfectly moral by the humanistic (i.e. nearly universally agreed upon) definition of morality, that being the reduction of needless suffering.

    "Really? Raping children can only be 'wrong' you exist to think it is wrong? Raping children wouldn't be wrong if you were not here to think it?"

    That is an absolutely meaningless question. If no children or people existed, then no children could be raped. And if no children or people existed then obviously 'raping children' wouldn't be immoral because the words 'raping children' and 'immoral' would not only not exist, but would have absolutely no meaning. Think then speak, Truth, don't speak without thinking.

    "RIGHT and WRONG PRESUPPOSES an objective moral reality apart from our subjective opinions. You cannot be wrong if there is no actual (objective) right or wrong to be wrong about."

    No, no, no! Once again you are making logically nonsensical points. 'Right' and 'wrong' are PURELY subjective. And I have never once tried to argue otherwise. To a serial child rapist, raping children is right, not wrong. I grant that. To the majority of society, including myself, however, raping children is NOT right but wrong, and thus we intervene to stop such behaviour whenever we can. And the reason that most people consider that to be wrong is because raping children is objectively HARMFUL, not objectively wrong, and as we are empathetic beings we strive to prevent needless suffering in others. There is no such thing as objectively right or wrong in the sense that you are talking about, because right and wrong are by definition subjective and purely conceptual constructs.

    Once again you are misusing words to try and throw me off. Well guess what, Truthy? It's not going to work. I know you too well now and I have your number down pat.

    It may be hard for you to accept, but the moral system utilized by a society is indeed either a dictatorial morality such as with the Nazis, or a democracy. And in our case, majority rules, because the majority defines the word. And the majority in our society and in almost all societies has ruled that causing needless pain and/or suffering in other people is not morally right. And any people who violate that morality, depending on the severity, get sent away. Case closed. You have none. That is the reality of it.
    (more)
  • Truth M... Fanghur 2013/04/24 23:59:16
    Truth Matters
    +1
    "No, no, no! Once again you are making logically nonsensical points. 'Right' and 'wrong' are PURELY subjective."

    Tell that to your professor. Tell him that grading your answer as wrong is PURELY subjective.

    Tell your family that the right or wrong of raping children is purely a matter of subjective opinion.

    Tell us when it is subjectively justified to rape your family and choke you to death - not objectively wrong.

    Again, you refuse to answer my questions. You choked.

    ""What is ACTUALLY moral - consistent with atheism? That presupposes an objective moral reality. You cannot ground any objective moral reality with atheism, yet you now claim it exists?"

    " To the majority of society, including myself, however, raping children is NOT right but wrong,"

    But how do you or society affirm something is wrong while denying there is any objective right or wrong? Are you affirming a delusion?

    Right and wrong PRESUPPOSE an objective target moral reality exists
    You are aiming arrows at a non-existent target. You would be aiming at a delusion.
    You may as well claim there is no objective target, but we are aiming at the bullseye on it.

    You're toast. Now go away
  • Fanghur Truth M... 2013/04/25 01:03:53 (edited)
    Fanghur
    +3
    "Tell that to your professor. Tell him that grading your answer as wrong is PURELY subjective."

    You are always telling me to demonstrate a single fallacy of yours? There you go. You just made a massive fallacy of equivocation. You are using the word 'wrong' in a completely different sense than I was, and you know it. I am talking about morally 'wrong' (meaning 'unacceptable') and you are talking about 'factually' wrong (meaning 'incorrect'). The former is subjective, the latter is objective. So never again ask me to demonstrate a fallacy you make, because it is right here.

    "Tell your family that the right or wrong of raping children is purely a matter of subjective opinion."

    As long as I made it perfectly clear that I am talking in a purely logical and definitional sense, they and most other people would agree. Since it is, by definition, a subjective opinion because if we didn't exist then the opinion wouldn't exist either. Again, think then speak. Don't speak without thinking.

    "Tell us when it is subjectively justified to rape your family and choke you to death - not objectively wrong."

    It is never objectively 'wrong' in the sense you are talking about. How could it be? The person committing the action is the person who is defining what the words 'right' and 'wrong' mean to them....























    "Tell that to your professor. Tell him that grading your answer as wrong is PURELY subjective."

    You are always telling me to demonstrate a single fallacy of yours? There you go. You just made a massive fallacy of equivocation. You are using the word 'wrong' in a completely different sense than I was, and you know it. I am talking about morally 'wrong' (meaning 'unacceptable') and you are talking about 'factually' wrong (meaning 'incorrect'). The former is subjective, the latter is objective. So never again ask me to demonstrate a fallacy you make, because it is right here.

    "Tell your family that the right or wrong of raping children is purely a matter of subjective opinion."

    As long as I made it perfectly clear that I am talking in a purely logical and definitional sense, they and most other people would agree. Since it is, by definition, a subjective opinion because if we didn't exist then the opinion wouldn't exist either. Again, think then speak. Don't speak without thinking.

    "Tell us when it is subjectively justified to rape your family and choke you to death - not objectively wrong."

    It is never objectively 'wrong' in the sense you are talking about. How could it be? The person committing the action is the person who is defining what the words 'right' and 'wrong' mean to them. In order for something to be truly objective it cannot be contingent on the subjective views of individuals (even gods!). If no humans existed, the word 'wrong' also wouldn't exist, and nor would the meaning which we attribute to it.

    It would of course be wrong to me, to my family, and to 99 % of people in our society. So one might say in a colloquial sense that since so many people hold that such things are 'wrong', the 'wrongness' is objectively so. But that is no more than a play on words.

    "Again, you refuse to answer my questions. You choked."

    I answered every single one of them, you just weren't happy with the answers because you don't want to face reality.

    "But how do you or society affirm something is wrong while denying there is any objective right or wrong? Are you affirming a delusion?"

    By consensus of the people in that society. The exact opposite of theistic morality, and why secular morality is superior in every way in terms of its practical value. And it is not grounded in nothing. It is grounded on the objective fact that we are living, thinking, feeling animals who do not enjoy pain or suffering, and who are able to empathize with the pain of others. It is grounded in reciprocity, cooperation and the desire to continue living. If you want to label that as arbitrary, then fine, it's arbitrary. But you have just stripped the word of all meaning.

    "Right and wrong PRESUPPOSE an objective target moral reality exists."

    No, they don't. At best they presuppose that humanity as a whole has certain values and core tenets which are almost universally held, but those are entirely explained by our biology and evolution.

    "You are aiming arrows at a non-existent target. You would be aiming at a delusion. You may as well claim there is no objective target, but we are aiming at the bullseye on it."

    No, YOU are aiming arrows at a non-existent target, because YOU are trying to argue for something that has zero logical meaning: objective subjectivity. That is nonsense. It is fundamentally self-contradictory. The subjective CANNOT exist independent of minds. It is a logical impossibility.

    And it isn't the religitards who are homing in on the moral systems that are objectively the best for ensuring the happiness, safety, and prosperity of our society and everyone in it. No, Truth, that would be the secular humanists. The freethinkers who recognize that this life is the only one we will ever have and so we should make it as pleasurable and productive a life as possible with our fellow human beings. It is the humanists who oppose the marginalization of people's rights, including those of the religious. It is the humanists and progressives who are the most productive, moral and helpful members of our societies as shown by virtually every poll. It is predominately the atheists who are unlocking the secrets of how our universe operates, and was formed. Even most Christians embrace humanistic principles, and the ones who don't, well...their numbers dwindle by the month, at least in western civilization.

    "You're toast. Now go away"

    Indeed. Go away and lick your wounds.
    (more)
  • Truth M... Fanghur 2013/04/25 02:26:28 (edited)
    Truth Matters
    +2
    When you claim that raping children is not objectively wrong, but morally good for the child rapist who thinks so, the debate is over.

    When you cannot affirm that killing your family to steal money is objectively wrong - even if you think it's right for you - then the debate is over.

    You 100% ignore your failure to ground a moral ontology (reality of morality), while yapping about subjective moral perceptions that presuppose an objective morality reality exists.

    You are aiming arrows at a target that doesn't exist - if atheism were true.
    Your commitment to atheism precludes what we both know is real. Atheism is false.

    It's rather pathetic you must affirm raping children to be justified for a child rapist (rather than objectively wrong) - just to protect your atheism.

    The truth is not in you.
  • gracious43 Truth M... 2013/04/25 14:27:20
    gracious43
    +1
    What is really pathetic is your attempt to use any concept of morality to prove or disprove God, when in fact, your world-view cannot even lay claim to morality or logic. Your world-view is based entirely on the concept that what exists can be identified by the five senses. Logic and morality are not identified by the five-sense.
  • Truth M... gracious43 2013/04/25 14:38:22
    Truth Matters
    +2
    Really? Where did I claim that? I agree with your assessment, but you are speaking to the wrong person.
  • gracious43 Truth M... 2013/04/25 14:51:43
    gracious43
    +1
    I'm sorry, I meant to speak to fanfur. Thanks for letting me know. I'll cut and paste it to him. :)
  • Fanghur Truth M... 2013/04/25 18:20:10
    Fanghur
    +1
    "When you claim that raping children is not objectively wrong, but morally good for the child rapist who thinks so, the debate is over."

    By the morality of the rapist of course it is. He defines his own morality, and it is an outlook that the rest of us find repugnant. Almost all of society shares that same subjective moral outlook; that harming children in any way other than to help them (surgery, shots, etc.) is morally wrong. That does NOT mean that that morality exists independent of the minds which hold it. That doesn't make sense.

    "When you cannot affirm that killing your family to steal money is objectively wrong - even if you think it's right for you - then the debate is over."

    Of course I can't. Because the idea of a subjective opinion existing independently of any minds is a logical impossibility. You are arguing something that is logically incoherent.

    "You 100% ignore your failure to ground a moral ontology (reality of morality), while yapping about subjective moral perceptions that presuppose an objective morality reality exists."

    No. The ontological basis for people's morality is whatever external factors they choose to base that morality on. In the case of most people, it is the minimization of unnecessary suffering in other living things.

    And what you just said makes...











    "When you claim that raping children is not objectively wrong, but morally good for the child rapist who thinks so, the debate is over."

    By the morality of the rapist of course it is. He defines his own morality, and it is an outlook that the rest of us find repugnant. Almost all of society shares that same subjective moral outlook; that harming children in any way other than to help them (surgery, shots, etc.) is morally wrong. That does NOT mean that that morality exists independent of the minds which hold it. That doesn't make sense.

    "When you cannot affirm that killing your family to steal money is objectively wrong - even if you think it's right for you - then the debate is over."

    Of course I can't. Because the idea of a subjective opinion existing independently of any minds is a logical impossibility. You are arguing something that is logically incoherent.

    "You 100% ignore your failure to ground a moral ontology (reality of morality), while yapping about subjective moral perceptions that presuppose an objective morality reality exists."

    No. The ontological basis for people's morality is whatever external factors they choose to base that morality on. In the case of most people, it is the minimization of unnecessary suffering in other living things.

    And what you just said makes zero logical sense. Morality doesn't 'exist' anywhere except within the mind. It is a purely conceptual and subjective construct. The only way to try to argue for an 'objective' morality in the sense that you are talking about would be to argue that morality is something physical/material/non-conceptual that exists outside of the mind. That is asinine. If no minds existed then no morality would 'exist'. Morality is entirely contingent on minds, just like emotion is entirely contingent on minds.

    "Your commitment to atheism precludes what we both know is real. Atheism is false."

    Reduced to empty assertions again, are we? You are wrong (incorrect). I know that what you are arguing is absolutely ridiculous because it is logically incoherent. Something that is purely conceptual cannot exist independent of minds.

    "It's rather pathetic you must affirm raping children to be justified for a child rapist (rather than objectively wrong) - just to protect your atheism."

    It isn't pathetic at all. I already said that I consider that to be morally wrong, as would literally every person whom I know personally. However, I will not fall into your trap by claiming that my personal morality would still exist if someone were to put a bullet in my brain right now. It would not. It would die along with me. And if humanity ever goes extinct then our concept of morality will die with us.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with 'protecting my atheism'. It has everything to do with the fact that I will not accept an assertion of yours that is logically incoherent. And the idea of a conceptual construct existing (in the same sense of the word 'existing') independent of a mind is logically nonsensical.

    Thoughts, feeling, emotions, etc. all require minds in order for them to 'exist'. Case closed, Truth. Either fix your argument so that it doesn't violate the laws of logic, or this debate is over.
    (more)
  • Truth M... Fanghur 2013/04/25 18:41:02
    Truth Matters
    +1
    More blabbering and lying about my argument to avoid answering.

    "Of course I can't. Because the idea of a subjective opinion existing independently of any minds is a logical impossibility"

    You are dishonest again:
    (a) You claim morality is nothing but subjective opinion (epistemology), not me.
    (b) You are failing to deal with the grounding of a moral reality (ontology) - not me.
    (c) The apprehension of an objective moral reality is perfectly logical.
    (d) The apprehension of a moral non-reality (atheism) is a subjective delusion and irrational.

    Don't pretend your irrational contradiction is mine. You claim we are aiming towards a morality that doesn't actually exist in reality - not me. You have us aiming arrows at no target reality. That is IRRATIONAL - and you know it.


    Now try answering my questions rather than dodging them:

    Why do you think raping children for pleasure is morally good if a child rapist thinks so - rather than objectively wrong irrespective of what a child molester thinks?

    Give us some examples of who is justified to rape children or kill your family to steal money?

    Why do you dodge the questions?
  • Fanghur Truth M... 2013/04/25 19:15:13
    Fanghur
    +1
    "(a) You claim morality is nothing but subjective opinion (epistemology), not me."

    That is all it is. But just like how evolution through natural selection is not random despite what morons like Hovind try to say, morality is ALSO not random. We are all human. Nobody enjoys experiencing pain and suffering. Most humans are able to empathize, through mirror neurons and various other neurological means, with the pain of others. And for this reason we avoid inflicting unnecessary pain on others. Sociopaths, that being people who are unable to empathize with others due to some kind of mis-wiring of their brains, or possibly defective mirror neurons. And it is this lack of empathy, what we call 'conscience' that leads them to committing acts which the rest of us find horrible.

    http://greatergood.berkeley.e...


    "(b) You are failing to deal with the grounding of a moral reality (ontology) - not me."

    I have done no such thing, in fact I have answered that allegation more times than I can count. Morality does not exist independently of minds. Therefore, if the idea of an ontological basis of morality is to have any meaning, then the ontological basis of morality is our brains and that which we base our morality on. That's it.

    "(c) The apprehension of an objective moral reality is perfectly l...











    "(a) You claim morality is nothing but subjective opinion (epistemology), not me."

    That is all it is. But just like how evolution through natural selection is not random despite what morons like Hovind try to say, morality is ALSO not random. We are all human. Nobody enjoys experiencing pain and suffering. Most humans are able to empathize, through mirror neurons and various other neurological means, with the pain of others. And for this reason we avoid inflicting unnecessary pain on others. Sociopaths, that being people who are unable to empathize with others due to some kind of mis-wiring of their brains, or possibly defective mirror neurons. And it is this lack of empathy, what we call 'conscience' that leads them to committing acts which the rest of us find horrible.

    http://greatergood.berkeley.e...


    "(b) You are failing to deal with the grounding of a moral reality (ontology) - not me."

    I have done no such thing, in fact I have answered that allegation more times than I can count. Morality does not exist independently of minds. Therefore, if the idea of an ontological basis of morality is to have any meaning, then the ontological basis of morality is our brains and that which we base our morality on. That's it.

    "(c) The apprehension of an objective moral reality is perfectly logical."

    Tell me, Truth. What do stars think about? What emotions do asteroids experience? That's right, they don't. Because they lack minds; they are not alive. Talking about objective (objective meaning independent of minds) morality makes just as much logical sense as asking what emotion an inanimate object is feeling at any given time, or asking a gust of wind what it is thinking, namely none.

    "(d) The apprehension of a moral non-reality (atheism) is a subjective delusion and irrational."

    Nope. No one ever said that morality isn't real. I said that it is contingent on minds (i.e. sentience) for its existence, and shaped by our biology and evolution. And there is nothing irrational about wanting to life a happy life. We know that our bodies exist, and our biology informs our morality. Therefore it is not a delusion. Look up the definition of the word.

    "Don't pretend your irrational contradiction is mine. You claim we are aiming towards a morality that doesn't actually exist in reality - not me. You have us aiming arrows at no target reality. That is IRRATIONAL - and you know it."

    More illogical nonsense. Anger doesn't exist in reality either outside our minds and yet we still get angry. Happiness doesn't exist in reality either, and yet we still get happy. We build the reality that we wish to live in (i.e. our society). That is real. That is tangible. That is logical. That is rational. Morality is BASED on reality. Therefore it is NOT irrational. Think then speak. Don't speak without thinking.

    And my answers to those questions (see below) will not change. They are perfectly valid responses, and I don't give a rat's ass if you aren't satisfied with them or not.
    (more)
  • Truth M... Fanghur 2013/04/25 20:21:29 (edited)
    Truth Matters
    +1
    "Nope. No one ever said that morality isn't real."

    Yes, you do when you claim it's not objective. Nothing is real without an objective basis in reality (ontology).
    You simply refuse to engage the logic. Subjective ideas about a moral reality that doesn't exist is delusion.

    Your spin and misdirection are not answers. You refuse to answer.
    I'm not going to continue correcting your sloppy thinking. You need to answer the questions.


    Now try answering my questions rather than dodging them:

    Why do you think raping children for pleasure is morally good if a child rapist thinks so - rather than objectively wrong irrespective of what a child molester thinks?

    Give us some examples of who is justified to rape children or kill your family to steal money?

    Why do you dodge the questions?
  • Fanghur Truth M... 2013/04/25 20:46:19
    Fanghur
    "Yes, you do when you claim it's not objective. Nothing is real without an objective basis in reality (ontology).
    You simply refuse to engage the logic. Subjective ideas about a moral reality that doesn't exist is delusion. "

    That is one of the stupidest things I have heard you say yet. Firstly, the ability of morality to exist DOES have an objective basis in reality - it's called the brain. Secondly, morality itself IS real to the individuals who experience it. I swear your arguments are becoming more and more fallacious after each exchange, I'm seriously starting to think you are doing it on purpose. I am going to say this for the absolute final time: You are not looking for an OBJECTIVE basis for morality, you are looking for a TRANSCENDENT basis of morality, which doesn't exist. They are not the same thing. Now stop misusing words to try and get people to slip up, because it will not work with me.

    "Now try answering my questions rather than dodging them:"

    http://www.sodahead.com/livin...
  • Truth M... Fanghur 2013/04/25 20:52:55
    Truth Matters
    Now try answering my questions rather than dodging them:

    Why do you think raping children for pleasure is morally good if a child rapist thinks so - rather than objectively wrong irrespective of what a child molester thinks?

    Give us some examples of who is justified to rape children or kill your family to steal money?

    Why do you dodge the questions?
  • Fanghur Truth M... 2013/04/25 21:03:31
    Fanghur
    I am not answering those questions again, my answers will not change. Go put on your reading glasses if you are having trouble reading it.
  • Truth M... Fanghur 2013/04/26 11:31:40
    Truth Matters
    You won't answer the questions I asked, because you can't.

    Now, tell me Andrew, Is your morality a subjective delusion in your head?
    What do you call something you know that has no objective reality?
    Is morality real or just a delusion?
    Is the moral wrong of raping children just a delusion or real?

    Of course, you won't answer the questions I asked. You will spin and deflect. You are not honest.
  • Fanghur Truth M... 2013/04/26 12:01:05
    Fanghur
    Delusion (noun): An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality.

    No, I would not call morality a delusion.

    "What do you call something you know that has no objective reality?"

    Subjective.

    "Is morality real or just a delusion?"

    Is happiness any less real to you simply because it is caused by dopamine, serotonin and endorphin release in the brain? I don't think so.

    "Is the moral wrong of raping children just a delusion or real?"

    It's real to me.

    I answered all your questions, I just did so without having to fall into your traps.
  • Truth M... Fanghur 2013/04/26 12:26:36
    Truth Matters
    You answered nothing.

    How do you know something that has no objective reality (truth)?
    Do you know things that are not true?

    What do you call things you know that are not true?

    If I thought the world was flat would that be delusional or true?

    Happiness is a personal state. A personal state is objectively true. Things that are right and wrong presume an objective real right and wrong exist - they are not personal states or preferences, etc.

    Q: Is the moral wrong of raping children just a delusion or real?"

    "It's real to me."

    Is God real for the person who believes God is real?
    Does belief make something real?

    Now get honest for once. Stop lying and spinning.
  • Truth M... Fanghur 2013/04/26 12:30:16 (edited)
    Truth Matters
    Also, let's get a real dictionary definition - not your phony definition that avoids the authoritative definition.


    Websters:
    DELUSION:
    a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
    b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs.

    Now answer my questions using the authoritative definition rather than your make-believe definition.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/11/27 03:04:48

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals