Does God exist?

[MHz]

A bit of a dichotomy for the religious because their beliefs get in the way.

Would a good example of this be when somebody reads an account in the OT where a whole Nation was slaughtered except for the virgin girls and then that somebody exclaims the Bible promotes rape. Is that a reflection of what they would do in a similar situation? The actual stories never say rapes took place in any of those similar situations so that is introduced solely by the 'reader', a desire to rape virgin girls would seem to lurk somewhere deep inside him.
Had they 'not judged' what happened after they were taken captive they would have read at some point that the girls had their heads shaved and then they were left alone for a month to mourn their lost ones and then they could be taken as wives, for life. (lets say there was a minimum age for marriage)

 

[MHz]

Can any of you prove that what ever you pray to exists. Simply bringing him/her/it by for coffee would suffice.

Prayer is about the closest I can come to proving He exists, the prayer gets answered. I just asked about your offer for coffee and God declined the offer on the grounds that is He did show up you (because of your present state and nothing more) would basically die.
Proof enough?

 

[Scott Free]

Are you sure you guys aren't NWO shrills?
This is an attempt to redefine what evil is, where was the term originally coined?

I was trying to find the meaning. I don't believe most people have any idea what they mean by the terms good and evil. I was attempting to find that.

I wish you had used a different example. If the Jews were attempting to take control of the German Govt, education, and industry then they were enemies of the State were they not?

They were patriots then if they thought the government was wrong headed.

That would make them evil and whatever was done to halt that sort of activity would not have been an act of pure evil (not meaning it was an act of goodness either)

So you're saying any opposition to something you find unfavourable is favourable; maybe not completely but at least somewhat.

I doubt the logic in that, however, I do see a positive effect of your opinion on the process.

When the US put a lot of Japanese in camps was that considered an act of evil even though the vast majority were most likely solid patriotic citizens of the US.

I would say so yes, since today we have not locked up the Muslims.

When train-loads of Jews were offered to the "West" and refused was that an act of evil by the West (if the Jews were trying to take control of Germany they deserved to be exiled, if nobody was willing to take them then what is the good solution for Germany).

By my definition this is explainable because time is an element of good. In time the good can become known through consensus, which therefore means that the West didn't act in evil but in ignorance - they were not yet aware of the looming evil which could only be revealed through time.

In fact turning the Jews away was probably considered favourable to their respective countries and therefore determined to be the good coarse. In time they would discover they were mistaken.

How evil would the Jews be if, after having some members killed in a failed takeover attempt, lied and said they were not doing anything.

If they were acting on something favourable then to them that attempt would have been good.

That makes Germany appear to be evil but in fact they were doing something good (saving their own country from being taken over) and Jews would not appear to be evil because they lied, but in truth they were evil for attempting to control a foreign Govt.

In my post I said such a conflict was possible between two objects. The resolution of which requires a third object which can be outside consensus, greater consensus or time.

In more modern times the US is slaughtering many Iraqis (over 1 million and counting) who just happen to be at the same location as a bomb or a bullet. Nobody seems to be calling that evil, in fact they don't seem to be saying anything that would be seen as an attempt to stop such acts (it's pretty clear every excuse to get in there was a bald-faced straight out intentional lie right from the start).

I certainly have called it evil but now since talking to the Muslims here on this forum I'm not so sure. I don't think the consensus in the USA is that the war in Iraq is evil but it certainly seems to be the world consensus.

The truth will be determined in time. The Americans claimed they acted in the Iraqi's favourable interests so there is a conflict. Also there is the emerging Islamic religion which may be determined as evil. It is only now emerging that Christianity is a force of evil - I do think that knowledge helps shed a better light on Islam and my hope is we can come to a consensus sooner than 2000 years but clearly a lot of time is going to have to pass before any true consensus can be reached. For example there are still millions of Christians and Muslims that don't know their religions are evil, but what is worse is that it isn't known that there would have been less evil without them, it is only an assumption and probably a good one but certainly no consensus has been reached on that yet.

What does that make those people, they should be considered just as evil as the ones who causing (or promoting that those attacks continue) the actual deaths (right back to the command centers).

It says they think the Iraqi war is favourable and that ultimately the general consensus will support them. Perhaps they even think they can manipulate the consensus or perhaps they think the true nature of Islam will do that for them.

They might even think consensus doesn't matter - would that ever be foolish thinking; but it is possible they think they are powerful beyond that. If this is the case then I would say they really don't understand good and evil and what a powerful force of change the concepts are to society.

 

[In Between Man]

I'm pretty sure that this is not taking leaven into account, if somebody tries to introduce customs or ideas into the Church that are in opposition to what teachings are already there then those custom, ideas and the people who (try to) introduce them are supposed to be tossed out of that Church (in a set manner that is not physically abusive)

Sorry Mhz, I don't understand exactly what your saying here. Please reiterate.

 

[In Between Man]

I think what Scott was getting at was that the Allies committed acts of attrocity equal to the Nazis, but we rarely hear of them, because the Allies were the victors...

If the Germans had won the war, Hitler's and the crimes of the SS would have been marginalized, and the Allies would be regarded as the heinous villains and murderers...

Granted! I concede that point. If the nazis would have won, we would probably considered their actions heroic and be under a swastika. That's not what I'm getting at. Instead of probably getting into a absurd debate on holocaust denial, lets dumb it down.

Currently, in the states(sorry, no AMW link) there's these two chumps wanted for shooting an innocent baby in the head, ON PURPOSE.

Is that action truly wrong? Or is it just my opinion, and probably consensus that its wrong?

And if it is just opinion, even with consensus, does that actually make it wrong? How can it?

And if right and wrong really is just opinion, the world better step out of my way. How dare mere opinion hold me back from how I want to treat people. That would imply someone's opinion more valid than someone else's. And that total BS, and you guys know it!

When we all condemn such horrible acts where is our justification for codemnation?

Well, I'll tell ya where. When we recoginize evil or wrong acts, we are in fact comparing them to a standard. "You can't call a line crooked, unless you have some idea of straight one." So what standard are we comparing it to? Our own benign moral feeling? Our relative opinions?

No. We're comparing them to the moral code written on our hearts.

 

[In Between Man]

Agreed, they're arguing that they're absolutely right, but again, the fact that people can so fundamentally disagree about what is absolutely right and wrong can only mean one of two things: either there is no objective standard, or we don't know what it is, which leaves us in effectively the same position of moral relativism. I still perceive you as arguing in support of precisely the opposite point to the one you think you're making. I'd agree, for instance, that Hitler and Mother Theresa were not equally wrong, but Mother Theresa was not what I'd call a paragon of virtue either. She believed in the redemptive value of suffering, which I think is a crock, and her clinics, in line with standard Catholic dogma, did not provide contraceptive information. She did less harm than Hitler, certainly, but she did do much harm.

I was only using Mother Theresa and Hitler as examples. I have serious problems with the RCC as well. The point is: Is there a true difference b/w helping and killing? Or is it really just relative and a matter of opinion? If so, how can that possibly define a REAL difference?

As for contradictory claims of absolute values, what it shows is that each side is appealing to objective morality as justification for their value. One value may actually be absolute and inalienable(right to free speech)the other might be a crock, claiming to be an absolute value(America is Satan, jihad is a holy war).

One is actually in line with the moral code, the other is a pure lie.

What if two opposing opinions are both in line with the moral code? Even two opposing absolute values, in line with the moral code, does not prove moral relativism.

Look at the issue of abortion. Both sides are appealing to the moral law, and both are in line with the moral code(protecting life and protecting liberty). The question is which value applies or takes precedence?

If the unborn were not human beings, then the pro-liberty value should be applied to legislation. If the fetus has its own genetic code, blood type, and sex, its it own human.

And since they do, the unborn are human beings. The pro-life value should be applied in legislation because a person’s right to life supersedes another person’s right to individual liberty.

“I’ve noticed all those in favor of abortion are already born.” -Regan

Indeed, all those in favor of abortion would become pro-life immediately if they found themselves back in the womb. Their REACTION to the possibility of being killed would remind them that abortion really is wrong. Of course, most people deep in their hearts know an unborn child is a human being, and therefore know that abortion is wrong.

So in the end, moral disagreements are not so because morality is relative or because the moral code isn’t clear. This moral disagreement exists because some people are suppressing the moral code in order justify what they want to do. They wish to give precedence to one particular value over another. Both borrowed from the objective moral code within. In other words, support for abortion is more a matter of the will than of the mind.

 

[MHz]

LOL I hope he came up with this on his own as it's pretty damn funny.
“I’ve noticed all those in favor of abortion are already born.” -Regan

I wonder if that applies to those that come from large families as well? (the further away from being the 1st, the more they are against abortion)

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...a person’s right to life supersedes another person’s right to individual liberty. ...Of course, most people deep in their hearts know an unborn child is a human being, and therefore know that abortion is wrong.

No, that is not logical or factual, it's not even a correct framing of the issue. All societies throughout history have accepted that under certain circumstances it's permissible to kill another human being, the debate is about particular circumstances, not the principle.

 

[In Between Man]

It therefore seems likely that a general determination of good and evil can only be derived at by consensus.

Consensus requires time and also the real judgement of something being favourable or unfavourable requires time; therefore something may seem good for a period to a smaller object, which in time and as the object grows, may become less so and even turn out to be evil by consensus.

So in the case of the Holocaust: it was good to Hitler and then to Germany but when the world found out it was determined to be evil: yet the entire time it was evil to the Jews.

I would argue that always if someone thinks something is evil then it is but this is because I am an anarchist and hold liberty as the most supreme maxim.

Like I said, if what you say is true, from now on, everyone in my way better watch out. How dare relative opinions, no matter the consensus, tell me what to do or how to act. All those times in my life when I look back. I should have crushed throats and I should have asserted my dominance.

Yet...

To be an anarchist, what justification do I have to uphold liberty in general, let alone my own? How can my opinion that liberty is the most supreme maxim, be more valued that any other opinion? Again, where is the justification?

 

[MHz]

Sorry Mhz, I don't understand exactly what your saying here. Please reiterate.

I was trying to say that Scripture does leave a way for the Church to judge members of the Church, and if that judgment is found to be against an individual the Church has the right, and the duty, to exclude them from being a member of that group.

 

[Scott Free]

Like I said, if what you say is true, from now on, everyone in my way better watch out. How dare relative opinions, no matter the consensus, tell me what to do or how to act. All those times in my life when I look back. I should have crushed throats and I should have asserted my dominance.

And then whether your actions were good or evil would be determined.

Yet...

To be an anarchist, what justification do I have to uphold liberty in general, let alone my own?

Ah, now you see, this is why the world isn't ready for anarchism. It isn't your liberty you uphold but rather it is everyones.

How can my opinion that liberty is the most supreme maxim, be more valued that any other opinion? Again, where is the justification?

It isn't more valuable - what on earth would give you that idea? Asserting your liberty only violates other peoples liberty; that isn't an anarchist, that's an @$$hole (just to be sure - I am not calling you a name).

 

[JLM]

alleywayzalwayz - Re:-abortion. I've come to the conclusion years ago that there is absolutely no use in further discussion of this subject, although I too have very strong personal feelings about it, but other people have the same. It just depends on what the person feels is most important- the life of the fetus or the convenience of the mother. All I will say on the matter is in general terms I think the subject of any decision should get first say in it (or the decision should be put aside until they can have a say in it).

 

[scratch]

I too have given this much thought and IMO, the decision is the mother's right.

regards
scratch

 

[MHz]

" Quoting MHz
Are you sure you guys aren't NWO shrills?
This is an attempt to redefine what evil is, where was the term originally coined?"

I was trying to find the meaning. I don't believe most people have any idea what they mean by the terms good and evil. I was attempting to find that.
(( Wouldn't some definition already given be enough?))

"Quoting MHz
I wish you had used a different example. If the Jews were attempting to take control of the German Govt, education, and industry then they were enemies of the State were they not?"
They were patriots then if they thought the government was wrong headed.
((And what would they be if they were doing it solely for their own benefit, 3% of the population being served by 97% is not patriotism))

"Quoting MHz
That would make them evil and whatever was done to halt that sort of activity would not have been an act of pure evil (not meaning it was an act of goodness either)"
So you're saying any opposition to something you find unfavorable is favorable; maybe not completely but at least somewhat.
I doubt the logic in that, however, I do see a positive effect of your opinion on the process.
((It isn't what I find unfavorable, would the people of Germany find their country being run by a small group that swear allegiance only to themselves find that situation unfavorable?))
"Quoting MHz
When the US put a lot of Japanese in camps was that considered an act of evil even though the vast majority were most likely solid patriotic citizens of the US."
I would say so yes, since today we have not locked up the Muslims."
Have any Muslims been targeted in any way, no-fly lists, names added to databases, and the list goes on? Most of the 'supposed hi-jackers' were from Saudi, what was done to them, they got to fly home when every plane in the country was grounded.

"Quoting MHz
When train-loads of Jews were offered to the "West" and refused was that an act of evil by the West (if the Jews were trying to take control of Germany they deserved to be exiled, if nobody was willing to take them then what is the good solution for Germany)."
By my definition this is explainable because time is an element of good. In time the good can become known through consensus, which therefore means that the West didn't act in evil but in ignorance - they were not yet aware of the looming evil which could only be revealed through time.
In fact turning the Jews away was probably considered favourable to their respective countries and therefore determined to be the good coarse. In time they would discover they were mistaken.
((And maybe they didn't want them because they would cause the same **** they were causing in their host countries. Easy enough to verify, were there any quotas on the number of Jews that could emigrate to the western countries?
I'm pretty sure the West knew exactly what would happen, after all their ethnic cleansing of Native North Americans had ended not all that long ago.))

"Quoting MHz
How evil would the Jews be if, after having some members killed in a failed takeover attempt, lied and said they were not doing anything."
If they were acting on something favourable then to them that attempt would have been good.
((So now lying is good? How far are you willing to take this redefining? Till you are good and everyone else that disagrees with you is totally evil?))

"Quoting MHz
That makes Germany appear to be evil but in fact they were doing something good (saving their own country from being taken over) and Jews would not appear to be evil because they lied, but in truth they were evil for attempting to control a foreign Govt."
In my post I said such a conflict was possible between two objects. The resolution of which requires a third object which can be outside consensus, greater consensus or time.
((Aren't both sides guilty of doing something evil?))

"Quoting MHz
In more modern times the US is slaughtering many Iraqis (over 1 million and counting) who just happen to be at the same location as a bomb or a bullet. Nobody seems to be calling that evil, in fact they don't seem to be saying anything that would be seen as an attempt to stop such acts (it's pretty clear every excuse to get in there was a bald-faced straight out intentional lie right from the start)."
I certainly have called it evil but now since talking to the Muslims here on this forum I'm not so sure. I don't think the consensus in the USA is that the war in Iraq is evil but it certainly seems to be the world consensus.
((The promise of cheap gas would be enough to shut up any American no matter what was going to be done to some country. That the States let this go on for this long means all the talk about 'trying to reign them in' is pure bull, words put out to sooth the international community (who don't really give a **** about anything beyond their own borders.))

The truth will be determined in time. The Americans claimed they acted in the Iraqi's favourable interests so there is a conflict. Also there is the emerging Islamic religion which may be determined as evil. It is only now emerging that Christianity is a force of evil - I do think that knowledge helps shed a better light on Islam and my hope is we can come to a consensus sooner than 2000 years but clearly a lot of time is going to have to pass before any true consensus can be reached. For example there are still millions of Christians and Muslims that don't know their religions are evil, but what is worse is that it isn't known that there would have been less evil without them, it is only an assumption and probably a good one but certainly no consensus has been reached on that yet.
((I'm pretty sure the truth is already out there, they lied every step of the way and the Americans use that as an excuse to be blameless (what could we do, they lied to us so we are blameless) True they can be blameless up to that point, not doing anything after that makes them accomplices, so they deserve the same punishment from inaction))
"Quoting MHz
What does that make those people, they should be considered just as evil as the ones who causing (or promoting that those attacks continue) the actual deaths (right back to the command centers)."
It says they think the Iraqi war is favourable and that ultimately the general consensus will support them. Perhaps they even think they can manipulate the consensus or perhaps they think the true nature of Islam will do that for them.
((Well sure it is, for them. Are the Americans so stupid that they think this is the 1st lie they have been fed? Not that the international community is any more effective than the American public at halting this sort of action. Poke a sharp stick at a peaceful bear and sooner or later it will rip your head off. Is that when America gets to say "See I told you he was dangerous."?

They might even think consensus doesn't matter - would that ever be foolish thinking; but it is possible they think they are powerful beyond that. If this is the case then I would say they really don't understand good and evil and what a powerful force of change the concepts are to society.
((They are bullies, plain and simple, and so are their bosses, don't hold your breath waiting for any changes this has been the way things are for centuries))

 

[In Between Man]

No, that is not logical or factual, it's not even a correct framing of the issue. All societies throughout history have accepted that under certain circumstances it's permissible to kill another human being, the debate is about particular circumstances, not the principle.

The principle is the underlying, main debate. The particular circumstances are just another aspect of the whole debate on the issue.

I'd also like to point out, do you see how seriously we question the whether or not its right to take a life under certain circumstances? If morality really is relative, would we as a society, really take life in general so seriously?

 

[In Between Man]

And then whether your actions were good or evil would be determined.

And that's suppose to stop me? Seriously! Just cuz there's a consensus, that's suppose to determine what's right and wrong? Opinions can't be justification to tell me how to act or live. No way, no how.

Ah, now you see, this is why the world isn't ready for anarchism. It isn't your liberty you uphold but rather it is everyones.

So as a human, I wish to stick up for the freedom of all others. How does my opinion measure up to the jerk who says freedom should be outlawed? Where's the justification? In numbers?

It isn't more valuable - what on earth would give you that idea?

I know its not more valuable. That's how I know that no man's opinion is justification to tell me how to act.

Asserting your liberty only violates other peoples liberty; that isn't an anarchist, that's an @$$hole

Got any interesting links on Anarchy? I'd like to check it out.

(just to be sure - I am not calling you a name).

I hate it when people are mistaken about something you post in a general sense, not directed at them. That's why I use the term : knucklehead. Its pretty harmless. Moral relativists are knuckleheads. See? :lol::lol::lol:

 

[In Between Man]

I was trying to say that Scripture does leave a way for the Church to judge members of the Church, and if that judgment is found to be against an individual the Church has the right, and the duty, to exclude them from being a member of that group.

Sorry, I must be slow lately. I am failing to make the connection here. The point you make about judgment, what is it in reference to?

 

[In Between Man]

alleywayzalwayz - Re:-abortion. I've come to the conclusion years ago that there is absolutely no use in further discussion of this subject, although I too have very strong personal feelings about it, but other people have the same. It just depends on what the person feels is most important- the life of the fetus or the convenience of the mother. All I will say on the matter is in general terms I think the subject of any decision should get first say in it (or the decision should be put aside until they can have a say in it).

I was just using that debate as an example. I have no wish to dive into the debate on abortion. Another day perhaps.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

If morality really is relative, would we as a society, really take life in general so seriously?

A society that doesn't value the lives of its members wouldn't last long, but if morality weren't relative there'd be no debate at all about the circumstances under which it's permissible to kill another human being. The debate exists precisely because there's no absolute standard, people disagree about it.

 

[Cliffy]

Got any interesting links on Anarchy? I'd like to check it out.

Google "The Anarchist Manifesto". I read it back in the seventies and have been one since. It is all about personal responsibility.