All Activity

Honestly, I don't know how anyone can not know that Biblically, adultery is wrong. Lots of OT stuff about this. And plenty in the NT also. In God's eyes, he clearly states many times: one man, one wife (at a time). The twain, the married couple, are to be ONE FLESH - not one flesh with multiple segments (other women). There were some special provisions (eg, a man was required to marry his childless brother's widow and to raise a son in his brother's name); it's unclear what happened if the surviving brother was already married. All it takes is simple reading of one's Bible, folks. Amazed that JS had to do a whole study paper- which is good, but could be better, by the way.

Maybe I should not have split the threads. But I honestly thought "what happens after we die" was a different enough question that it deserved its own thread. So, we clearly agree that there is no post-life punishment for euthanasia (nor is there a post-life reward for sticking out the suffering). Not long ago I learned an actor friend of mine took his life in a "no way am I going to suffer the way my disease prescribes" manner. The thought is terrifying to me, precisely because I don't believe ending this life ushers us into the next. I think it was Ricky Gervais who said "People think atheists have nothing to live for. They have it backwards. Atheists have nothing to DIE for. We have everything to live for." Because this is our one shot at life, so make it flipping count! If you're looking at those issues from THIS side of the final curtain, the question of whether these acts are moral becomes a little murkier. But as far as post-death accounting: there is none. We agree on that.

Thanks

When I was in TWI and prayed for someone to be healed, it never happened. I never saw a miracle result from anyone praying for healing.

g

One more word and you'd have had it, George.

"Slippin' and a sliding and playing domino Lefting and then righting, it's not a crime you know You gotta tell your story boy before it's time to go I was talkin' to the preacher, said, "God was on my side" Then I ran into the hangman, he said, "It's time to die" You gotta tell your story boy you know the reason why

It had nothing to do with flatscreens nor digital TV.

Flat-screen TVs came out in the late '90s, and digital TV was around 2007. I suspect that Raf's "22 minutes" is a clue, but I'm not getting it. Raf's a newsman, so maybe it has something to do with cable news. George

I submit that would be an oxymoron. The standard is objective. The value you place on it is subjective. A person is 6 ft tall. That is objective. If you're a horse jockey that person is too tall. That is a value. If you're a basketball player that person is too short. That is a value. Same six feet. But for one group he's too tall, and for the other group he's too short. Same six feet.

Would it be fair to say ""The objective standard for morality is, in and of itself, subjective." ?

This is not what I am trying to say. Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify. I am choosing my words and their order very carefully: To the Christian, Christianity (the Bible, God's Word) is the standard for objective moral values. To the Jew, I could make a similar comment but it would be presumptuous, so I am only doing so for the sake of argument: Judaism is the standard for objective moral values. To the Muslim, Islam, the Quran, is the standard for objective moral values. This atheist (we don't all agree) rejects the premise of "objective moral values" as an oxymoron. Moral values are subjective by definition, which is why you can't get two societies to agree on abortion, the death penalty, gay rights, etc I believe, "oversimply," that an analysis of harm:benefit forms an objective standard for moral values. Note the placement of "objective," because it is crucial: the STANDARD can be objective even though the values themselves are not. Actions are not good or evil until they are deemed to be good or evil by someone committing, affected by, observing or merely hypothesizing the action. "Thou shalt not kill." Therefore, all soldiers are evil. No, it's thou shalt not murder. Oh that's different. No it's not. It's the same act. The only difference is, you ran the latter act through a subjective filter because you recognize that not all killing is the same. Blah blah blah. Atheists do not believe our morality is objective. We believe all morality is subjective. We also believe that the (oversimplified) harm-benefit analysis standard produces subjectively superior results compared to the standard of scripture, Jewish, Christian or Muslim. Which is not to say the scriptures contain no good. There's lots of good. Some great! There's just some not-so-good, too. Harm-benefit can duplicate the good but it cannot duplicate the bad unless it is ignored.

Lemme know if I am saying this correct: To the Christian, Christianity is objective To the Jew, Judaism is objective To the Atheist, Atheism is objective But to everyone collectively, universally; there is no objective moral truth...

What happens when you die v. Are these actions right or wrong. Very different questions, and neither answer depends on the other.

Did that adequately answer your question? We would you care to post a rebuttal?

Sorry I don’t get the difference. My bad.

I don't mean to be snide, but it's not universal until everyone agrees, and I don't think we can get EVERYONE to agree on ANYTHING. So we can get widespread agreement on, say, "murder is wrong." But rape? No, humanity grew into that one. For a long time, women were considered property, and so the rules against rape reflected the belief it was a crime against the property owner: her husband or father. I think we would be hard pressed to find anyone who believes Jennifer Love Hewitt is less attractive than Sandra Bernhard. But that doesn't make her OBJECTIVELY more beautiful because no matter how you slice it, beauty is a matter of taste, opinion. I'm saying morality is like that: even if one were to find a universally accepted moral tenet, that would not make it objective.

Objective

Define universal

Oh! Well, shoot! Saw an ad last night during the CWS. It used the same language as WW's description. Apologies. Carry on.

So then, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that there's no such thing as universal moral values?

According to Wikipedia, ESPN launched in 1979. George

Great, NOW he asks the morality questions. I can't win. If there's no eternal soul, there's no afterlife consequence to those actions for the person who commits them.

If we as humans have no eternal soul like the animals, assuming you agree with this, how about the following beliefs? What about Euthanasia? If we with all love and kindness end our pets lives so they no longer suffer, what about letting mom or dad end their lives so they no longer suffer? How about if grandma has been living with a terminal disease that has wracked her body so badly that she no longer has a peaceful moment? Should she be required to suffer for an extended period of time even though she will not get better, only worse? And concerning abortion should a family be required to to bring a human bring into the world that they do not want, for whatever reason? The root of why Euthanasia and abortion not allowed is because of religious beliefs. And as Raf pointed out, now that we have granted our pets eternal life, should we not outlaw Euthanasia and abortion of them on religious grounds also? So if there is no after life no has to be concerned about god punishing us for making dying a bit easier.

ESPN Elvis Presley made his performance debut October 16th, 1954 on a weekly talent showcase. He was signed to a contract to perform on the program every Saturday for $18 a show. Colonel Tom Parker “discovered” Elvis after 18 months of performing and bought his contract for $10,000. What was the name of the radio program or venue?