A Philosophy Of Morality

Sierra Times ^ | Deborah Venable

[ArGee]

Indeed. Moreover, they would not have been human.

I'm sorry that your vision of humanity is so poor. Stupidity is not a defining trait of humanity.

Although they could fool you on that point.

Shalom.

[SpookBrat]

LOL!! I sincerely hope young Brad has more sense than his 'gramma', a woman who is apparently incapable of complex thought.

He could hardly have less, I suppose.

This was an unreasonable, "swinish" thing to say to a fellow Freeper. How dare you bring her young grandson into your disagreements. An extremely low and personal blow which is uncalled for. Debate her opinion and leave her children or grandchildren out of it.

[sarasmom]

Hey, back off that remark!I can get your coords. :)

My child prays,whenever she wants to do so, silently.I have raised her to know God as omnipotent.To her, and for myself, God is God.

Based on my own experience, my child has a closer relation with the creator than many of the people who wish to force her to subscribe to one particular crede or another.I really dont want the public school system to do anything except stay far, far away from my family, or any family's,spiritual beliefs.

[BikerNYC]

My vision of humanity is so poor? On the contrary.

I think you would have thought it best if Adam and Eve never summoned the courage and curiosity to eat of that tree, and thereafter have the freedom to define for themselves what is best for them.

My vision of humanity ranks the acts of Adamn and Eve as great acts of human courage and freedom. They are human heros...to be honored and respected for setting us on a course of freedom and self-determination. They were the first to create the value of self-determination, that humans can decide for ourselves how to organize and structure our lives, for good or evil. We might take actions that we later will call mistakes, but they will be our mistakes, to be learned from, yet appreciated as the result of freedom.

Your vision of humanity smells of dead-end lives. People unable to think for themselves or act with the inspiration of freedom. We are to be spoon-fed our thoughts and told how to act. If that's how you think humans should be, there's not much to discuss.

[RightWhale]

back off that remark!

No problem. I don't want to get blown up today. :)

[Zon]

Sheesh the Libertarians are really going to build up my ego, when using my name becomes an automatic "slur". The "slur" in Libertarian circles, is regarded by me as a badge of honor.

Don't kid yourself. There are more conservatives than Libertarians that have nailed your modus operandi.

[f.Christian]

To the rescue...the anti-libberatarians are here--- realatarians-up--rule the FRoost now!

[ArGee]

This makes no sense. I want to know more. Yet you say I need no proof. Bwah?

I challenge that. The evidence of your posts is that you only want to prove that G-d does not exist.

I notice that you said you prove color to the blind rather easily, but did not offer the proof.

Until your spirit awakens, you will never see G-d. I continue to pray (yes, I remember that other thread) that you will wake up.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Your vision of humanity smells of dead-end lives.

If you could only see what I see. If G-d had wanted to create robots he would have.

The only freedom that Adam and Eve grabbed for themselves that they didn't already have was the freedom to run into the street in front of a moving dump-truck. G-d wants us to grow, to explore, to live the full human life. All of the rules He established were to ensure that we could do that. He knew that if we ran into the street in front of a moving dump-truck we would be killed. Your version of life says that it can't be full unless you find that out for yourself.

Would you be terribly offended if I called that a stupid idea?

Shalom.

[headsonpikes]

Uh...that was a jest. Did you actually read the germane posts? My remark was 'milder' than hers. ;^)

[homeschool mama]

There *is* no argument to be had with you because your mind is already made up and you're just out to destroy those on this thread who don't follow your philosophy. Which is why I stated: Pearls Before Swine.

[BikerNYC]

The only freedom that Adam and Eve grabbed for themselves that they didn't already have was the freedom to run into the street in front of a moving dump-truck.

Hardly. It was the freedom to decide for themselves what is right and wrong and how to live their lives and the freedom to decide those things amongst a community of fellow human beings. It was a statement to their creator that they would not be shackled by any bonds of servitude, be they physical, emotional, intellectual or moral; that if we are created free, we would be truly free. It's a very American story actually.

I think it was Ghandi who said, "A bad government of our own choosing is better than a good government of an alien power." Adam and Eve cemented that for us and I salute them for doing it.

[ArGee]

Hardly. It was the freedom to decide for themselves what is right and wrong and how to live their lives and the freedom to decide those things amongst a community of fellow human beings.

You are saying this against a backdrop of a G-d who is a tinpot dictator who only wants to rule mankind because He gets off on power.

We have the freedom to decide what is right and what is wrong. Always have. But we can decide that an all knowing, all loving G-d already knows the answer and just ask him, or we can hurt ourselves figuring it out for ourselves.

Another way to look at it. If you've taken a calculus course, you have the freedom to integrate equations if you want to. Or you can buy a book with thousands of solutions and just look it up.

The analogy breaks down because the publishers of the book may err, and you may know as much about integrating equations as they do. On the other hand, G-d never errs, and you don't know Jack in comparison.

We gained nothing but pain by refusing to humble ourselves and learn from G-d. We would have had the ultimate freedom if Adam and Eve had simply listened.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

That's because the proof is simple. Ever heard of crayons or markers? A mind-bogglingly simple experiment can be set up using a blind person, a box of crayons, several sheets of paper and a room full of volunteers to prove to the blind person that color exists.

But then you are depending on the blind person to accept the subjective position of the room full of people. And what if a large number of those people (or even a small number) are color blind and insist to the blind person that the rest are lying.

Don't you know that you can talk to millions of people just like me who will tell you for certain that G-d exists? And you will accept our statement - just like you expect the blind man to accept the statement of the so-called seeing?

If you really wanted to know if G-d existed, you would be asking, "How can I know?" rather than, "Proove that your so-called G-d exists." The former is the voice of a person who is really looking for an answer. The latter is a person who may be willing to accept a position that he currently rejects if you can make your argument to his liking.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Yes... but then, they will describe God extremely differently

One group will describe G-d extremely similarly across all cultures.

And if someone came to me and said that Nessie really exists, I wouldn't even bother to say "prove it" because I don't really care. But if I answered, I would say "prove it."

On the other hand, if I cared, I would say, "How do you know?"

Shalom.