True nuff, but I challenge you to prove I am wrong.
lol Yeah, my mum was much the same.
And men, as gods, being just one letter short of mean, are, on a mean average, quite true, too.
God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
- Thread starter French Patriot
- Start date
And men, as gods, being just one letter short of mean, are, on a mean average, quite true, too.
Ever had to supervise a group of women at work, or coach a team of girls? I'm assuming not, or you wouldn't have said that.
I'd like to agree, but most of my children are girls. I think they just might save this old world.
Comparing Harry to god... no comparison. Wizards have been around in folk lore forever. She didn't invent him, she just redesigned him.
Really? In my books, fictitious characters are fictitious characters.
Really?
OK. Who's the one that really invented Harry Potter? I know Raistlin Majere was invented byTracy Hickman and margaret Weiss, Jim Butcher invented Harry Dresden, etc. So tell me, who invented Harry Potter if it wasn't Joanne Rowling?
Blame your imaginary God!
No. He is imaginary.
I am giving praise to secular law for being more moral than your God's.
That is why you follow secular law and would not vote to live by God's draconian and unjust laws.
You know they are not moral and that is why you did not provide an argument against the O P.
Punch and run is so dreary.
Regards
DL
What remarkable circular logic upon which you rely.
Direct reference to 'God's Law' followed immediately with the statement that there is no God.
Do you get it?.. If there is no God, then there is no laws that are attributable to God, leaving only secular law.
Time to grow up DL
Religion and culture go hand and hand. You will note that most cultures, regardless of religion has embraced secular law. Some like Muslims try to push Sharia law but even Muslin countries do not follow Islamic law. Except for stoning or death to gays of course but then so do some Christian churches.
Promoting death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_BVzw&feature=related
Regards
DL
Exactly. Human nature doesnot work with only the cooperation side of evolution. We must also have thecompetition side which is the one that the losers will see as evil.
You cannot help but do evilmy friend if you want to survive.
Can you help but do evil? Ido not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why wouldGod punish you?
Christians are always tryingto absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their freewill argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused ourfall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God'sculpability as the author and creator of human nature.
Free will is only the abilityto choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose"A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Evewould even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed bya serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie inthe nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable fordeliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "freewill" means nothing as a response to this problem.
If all do evil/sin by naturethen, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some whowould not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
Having said the above for theGod that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tellyou that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree withChristians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’sresponsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that canonly be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has beenforcibly withheld.
Much has been written toexplain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.
Consider.
First, let us eliminate whatsome see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and areneither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims arecreated. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this iscalled mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court willnot find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of theact.
Evil then is only human tohuman when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.
As evolving creatures, all weever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see asgood as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as itcreates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing,doing evil, at all times.
Without us doing some ofboth, we would likely go extinct.
This, to me, explains whythere is evil in the world quite well.
Be you a believer in nature,evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something toblame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanksfor being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, withoutevolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.
There is no conflict betweennature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all mustdo what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to thiscompetition.
These links speak to theisticevolution.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ProfMTH#g/c/6F8036F680C1DBEB
If theistic evolution istrue, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not reallyany original sin.
If the above is notconvincing enough for you then show me where in this baby evil lives or is apart of it’s nature and instincts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA
Can you help but do evil? Ido not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why wouldGod punish you?
Regards
DL
Whose law is closer to natural law? Secular or God law?
Regards
DL
Note how the wife is put in with all the other owned goods.
In that day, women were chattel.
Strange that God himself is said to have coveted Mary, another man's woman for reproduction.
So much for his omnipotence.
Regards
DL
“Faith must trample under footall reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a *****, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther
Regards
DL
Exactly.
But there are laws, to believers at least, that are attributable to a God and that is what we are comparing here. What is given as belief by believers in what is given as God's law, ---- as compared to secular law.
Regards
DL
Hi MHz. Long time no chat.
If born a woman in the Abrahamic cults then he as a she would just curse her luck.
Regards
DL
As per the existing laws in Western society and the general moral code, they are founded on the tenets of 'God's Law' (Bible).
Regardless of the position of whether God exists or not, the notion that the moral (and Western legal) codes are (at least in part) founded on Biblical teachings essentially mandates that Secular Law is in fact also founded (at least in part) on the same.
The identical observation exists for almost all cultures as practiced in those regions/jurisdictions.... You simply can't get away from it
Bible law my rump.
That Bible law is written insome form or other by the older religions of the region. Check the Book of theDead and the myths from Sumer.
If that is not enough then
I will add these clips to themix for your consideration. They show who put what in Jesus' mouth and howChristianity has been manipulated. The first which is part of the second speaksto my Gnostic Christian label and the second shows my view of religions overalland the Noble Lie that I think we and our governments should rescind. The thirdclip speaks to the reason that religions were invented in the first place as itshows why social control was required for city states that had to deal with thereality of finite resources. I see these city states as led by a timocraticking who through the religion that he would have created, also realized thatthere had to be a tyrannical part to his benevolent duty and created a religion to be just that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrMtRm3b8MU&feature=autoplay&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5&playnext=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne1wIEGnPWo
I see the King/God as havingto have the morals shown in the Haigt clip.
http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/
He would have to create hisreligion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by thefirst commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of hisKing/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman systemwould later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through the Flavian and later throughConstantine.
http://www.simchajtv.com/movie-secrets-of-christianity-selling-christianity/
Regards
DL
I provide no argument about your asinine OP because no argument is necessary. The "laws" you quote are not God's laws. They are man's laws. Just because you are too stupid to be able to differentiate between them is not my problem.