General

Re: do we need the supernatural for morals?

Malachi — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 20:32:20 GMT

i can get that loving neighbor as myself can mean that it's best for violent situations to be resolved without harm to one another, that's harder to understand this antihomosexual stuff i see some of these churches support.

maybe you should ask them about it then.

from loving god by following his commandments, figures a gay person could follow those two main ones as much as any straight person. if being gay is a rejection of god, then there must be a lot of detail to how to not reject god and follow gods other commandments. i see some churches say both gay and straight can follow those two commandment's while others say only straight people can.

yes, theres a wide arange of opinions on homosexuality among people who call themselves followers of Christ. Thats why I cant address the "antihomosexual stuff" you mentioned above.

Re: do we need the supernatural for morals?

cab21 — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 20:16:15 GMT

i can get that loving neighbor as myself can mean that it's best for violent situations to be resolved without harm to one another, that's harder to understand this antihomosexual stuff i see some of these churches support. i figure gay people can have a loving relationship with god and each other as much straight people can, or what is there keeping this from happening?from loving god by following his commandments, figures a gay person could follow those two main ones as much as any straight person. if being gay is a rejection of god, then there must be a lot of detail to how to not reject god and follow gods other commandments. i see some churches say both gay and straight can follow those two commandment's while others say only straight people can.

Re: do we need the supernatural for morals?

Malachi — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 19:49:08 GMT

Love is an emotion that means at its most basic that one identifies with the recipient to such a degree that when something happens to that person, it is as if the thing happened to onesself. For instance, I love my brother, so when he makes $800 on a financial deal I myself am as happy as I would be if I myself had made the $800. So to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength you would identify with God and want what He wants for the universe, instead of getting upset when it rains, youre glad the plants are getting water, instead of being upset when you get sunburnt, you thank God for the life-giving radiation and resolve to be more careful in how you expose yourself to God's blessings in tne future, etc.

loving your neighbor is the same, its "lead reciprocity" instead of "follow reciprocity." you treat other people well because you want them to treat you well. You set the example for how to treat others by your own treatment of them. This extends to how you react to them when they wrong you, you want to resolve the dispute peacefully if possible, and in any event with a minimum of violence. We have all wronged others, and I know that I would rather have had those disputes resolved in an efficient, surgical manner, rather than beefs and duels and vendettas and sabotage etc. So we always treat other like we would want to be treated. This also entails self-defense, if you were in an aggressive violent fever, and looking for prey, you would rather no one give you a target and therefore allow your fever to pass, right?

Re: do we need the supernatural for morals?

cab21 — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 19:21:37 GMT

how are those rules defined, as in what does it mean to love god with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength?

Re: do we need the supernatural for morals?

Malachi — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:55:04 GMT

All of the law can be summed up in only two rules, Love God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself.

Re: do we need the supernatural for morals?

cab21 — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:38:46 GMT

so who has figured out the correct moral facts?

Re: do we need the supernatural for morals?

Malachi — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:24:37 GMT

Your confusion is not an existential condition. The existence of conflicting opinions doesnt make it impossible to determine fact.

a society won't have a consistant moral code if many people in society beleive in different facts as to what that moral code should be.

youre confusing morals and ethics.

Re: do we need the supernatural for morals?

cab21 — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:21:14 GMT

there could one right answer and fact, but it's hard to get a moral system if noone knows it or can convince others that it is right. these oppinions are given as fact's and doctrine rather than oppinions. a society won't have a consistant moral code if many people in society beleive in different facts as to what that moral code should be.

Re: do we need the supernatural for morals?

Malachi — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:15:22 GMT

from what i read there are so many different christian thoughts on what the consequences of our actions will be and how they affect the afterlife that even the supernatural consequences are unclear to make a universial moral standard.

correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like youre saying that "there are too many conflicting opinions for their to be an underlying fact." which is a non sequitur.

Re: do we need the supernatural for morals?

cab21 — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 08:36:08 GMT

from what i read there are so many different christian thoughts on what the consequences of our actions will be and how they affect the afterlife that even the supernatural consequences are unclear to make a universial moral standard. also for debate are what god actualy wants as ways for salvation

http://www.northforest.org/ChristianTopics/hell.html

Re: do we need the supernatural for morals?

Lady Saiga — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:11:07 GMT

Not all moral systems rely on a belief in the supernatural, no. According to Plato, Socrates didn't believe an ethic was valid solely because it was espoused by a god, and as I understand it the classical Mediterranean world in general, at least, agreed.

If you're asking if there is a universal moral possible, I say no. The best you can ever do is collect a series of the most common virtues that people place value on, but they can never be really universal. Even within a single social group each individual places higher value on some rather than other of the virtues extolled by their society.

The rule with humans is, if anything, that what works for one person or group will not work for another.

It seems to me that NAP is the closest thing we can get to a universal, only because it demands that people negotiate a common ground when they interact.

Re: do we need the supernatural for morals?

Malachi — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 23:01:46 GMT

I dont necessarily agree as I think that if you "prove" the supernatural to exist, scientists will just scramble to redefine it in scientific terms. However if you dont accept life after death then karma ia a hard sell. It depends on what morals the individual believes in.

an island of chaos is created whenever coercion is employed to gain resources because they miscalculate based on their nonproductive gains. Its an austrian term.

Re: do we need the supernatural for morals?

Anenome — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 22:55:38 GMT

Malachi:
1) is life after death supernatural?

It would have to be, sure. We know of no physical way for a consciousness to exist except as produced by a physical body.

Malachi:
2) is becoming part of an "island of chaos" a net bad? Could it be in the long term?

Certainly, if you choose to characterize a free society as chaos! I would not characterize it thus however. It is ad-hoc organization, not a complete lack of organization (chaos).

Re: do we need the supernatural for morals?

Malachi — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:41:45 GMT

http://www.theopedia.com/Noetic_effects_of_sin

The noetic effects of sin are the ways that sin negatively affects and undermines the human mind and intellect.

Re: do we need the supernatural for morals?

Malachi — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 06:45:27 GMT

1) is life after death supernatural?

2) is becoming part of an "island of chaos" a net bad? Could it be in the long term?

3) Neodoxy is right, there are no morals without consequences.