628 replies to this topic

[Arbitran]

Yamato, on 27 June 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Yeah, your "One must weigh the pros and cons of following the Golden Rule" moral code that you were born with is a thing of wonder, truly.   If you'll sacrifice your morality for your diet, you're the reason religion exists.  The truth is, the only thing you could repeat about your own morality gets sold up the river at the first sign of trouble.  What "exact text" is that from?   Sorry, but your flaky is no better than their disciplined.

You seem to think that morality is objective. It isn't. I don't want to kill, but if I don't kill from time to time, I'll starve. Is that really so hard to understand?

[Yamato]

Arbitran, on 28 June 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:

You seem to think that morality is objective. It isn't. I don't want to kill, but if I don't kill from time to time, I'll starve. Is that really so hard to understand?

You seem to think that morality is objective. It isn't.

Morality is subjective therefore it needs objectives.  Civilizations always have an objective sense of morality, and I think if you think about that long enough you'll agree with me.  The question becomes how best to maintain that objective sense and whether to have standards that you can be compared with to others.   Having no baseline and starting from whatever you subjectively want is a great way to lose your freedom or your life if you live under those pesky things called laws that actually can injure you and actually can force you to behave.  So the question further becomes how to protect individual liberty without violating the individual liberty of others.

I don't want to kill, but if I don't kill from time to time, I'll starve. Is that really so hard to understand?

I can understand your rhetoric but I can't condone it.   Factually it's not even true.  If you want to maintain a top tier diet you're not going to have to kill anything.   If you climb Michi's Ladder with me and follow a P90X-like diet that will improve your health dramatically and get in the best shape of your life, you're not going to be eating meat.  You'll be eating apples, artichokes, amaranth, arugula and asparagus if you like the letter A.  But let's presume we're still in the Dark Ages and will individually and subjectively starve to death without killing something.  Are you prepared to slaughter it with your bare hands and dress its carcass yourself?  Or do your morals tell you that it's wrong to kill, unless you're hungry, and someone else does it for you?   That you even took the bait and tried to play this off as morality at all is noteworthy because once you start making exceptions you welcome the tsunami of everyone else's exceptions and the moral dies on the vine.

"One must weigh the pros and cons of following the Golden Rule" is rhetorical nonsense that could mean anything we want it to.  That's not a moral code, it's a moral evasion.

[Arbitran]

Yamato, on 28 June 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

You seem to think that morality is objective. It isn't.

Morality is subjective therefore it needs objectives.  Civilizations always have an objective sense of morality, and I think if you think about that long enough you'll agree with me.  The question becomes how best to maintain that objective sense and whether to have standards that you can be compared with to others.   Having no baseline and starting from whatever you subjectively want is a great way to lose your freedom or your life if you live under those pesky things called laws that actually can injure you and actually can force you to behave.  So the question further becomes how to protect individual liberty without violating the individual liberty of others.

I don't want to kill, but if I don't kill from time to time, I'll starve. Is that really so hard to understand?

I can understand your rhetoric but I can't condone it.   Factually it's not even true.  If you want to maintain a top tier diet you're not going to have to kill anything.   If you climb Michi's Ladder with me and follow a P90X-like diet that will improve your health dramatically and get in the best shape of your life, you're not going to be eating meat.  You'll be eating apples, artichokes, amaranth, arugula and asparagus if you like the letter A.  But let's presume we're still in the Dark Ages and will individually and subjectively starve to death without killing something.  Are you prepared to slaughter it with your bare hands and dress its carcass yourself?  Or do your morals tell you that it's wrong to kill, unless you're hungry, and someone else does it for you?   That you even took the bait and tried to play this off as morality at all is noteworthy because once you start making exceptions you welcome the tsunami of everyone else's exceptions and the moral dies on the vine.

"One must weigh the pros and cons of following the Golden Rule" is rhetorical nonsense that could mean anything we want it to.  That's not a moral code, it's a moral evasion.

Ah, so you're one of those... I don't think I have much more to contribute here. I'm not going to change your head at all; that much is clear.

[NavyDoc]

I read page one of this thread and then skipped to page 42. Fascinating how threads evolve over time, isn't it?

[Beckys_Mom]

NavyDoc, on 28 June 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

I read page one of this thread and then skipped to page 42. Fascinating how threads evolve over time, isn't it?

Yup...it went from - Christian view of the dinosaur   to  the Chronicles    of  Narnia !! ...I wonder what it will have evolved to nest?  Perhaps they will discuss  Snow White and the 7 dwarfs?.... Or Who's the best Superhero of all time.. you'll never know what may come of this thread... lol



Its a shame it has derailed like that..The OP started was a lovely guy.. he died some time ago..and I personally would have loved to seen his thread do so well in his memory.

[NavyDoc]

I'm sorry to hear the OP has passed on. Sometimes one forgets just how old a thread is.

[Yamato]

Alas, there's only so much that can be said about the Christian view of the dinosaur ladies and gentlemen.   Has the question not been definitively answered yet to warrant further discussion?   Once we have the answer, where do we go from there?

All the discussion here IS in memory of the OP if we want it to be.   The Christian view of prayer is to pray for the dead also.

[garret324]

I heard that the bible says that the earth was ruled by titans before their was people and then god sent down his angel's (the nephlims i believe) to rid the earth of these monsters so that the we could survive???

[synchronomy]

NavyDoc, on 28 June 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

I read page one of this thread and then skipped to page 42. Fascinating how threads evolve over time, isn't it?

LOL...I just did exactly the same.
I had to scroll back up to see what the topic was.

[joc]

I'm just wondering why this thread isn't closed.

[Ninhursag]

It's An Old Topic .. Maybe We Can Restart It .. You Know, For Those Of Us Who Weren't Here When It Was Originally Started :p

Anyway Good Question, I've Often Wondered About The Same Thing ..

[Queen Nefertari]

SwampGator, on 11 October 2006 - 04:21 AM, said:

You won't get a debate with christians or bible historians.
They will avoid this thread like the plague.

I can prove you wrong. Not all christians are dull minded so stop putting us all in one lump sum. I can't stand it when people do that

[justcalmebubba]

i guess no one bothered to read  the book of job in the old testment   i dont much think it matters what version you read but doesnt it say some thing about a livithan and another beast  sorry dino's are beasts just like us humans can be concidered beast by other alien races maybe ....if it bleeds  its life blood its alive doesnt realy matter what you call it... myths and ledgens  had to start from some thing in real life other wise  in this day and age  your nothing but a meer creative spark in the mind of  a child

[kpat86]

Did you know that apparently to the bible, the earth was created about six thousand years ago?  But, also the ancient egyptians, greeks, or the norse believed in multiple gods? that was before six thousand years ago and many of the stories in the bible are very similar to stories in their religions. And why would god ignore these people to what really happened, don't forget the ancient Indians, Chinese, Japanese, and other people lived before Christianity existed.  Did they all go hell because they didn't know better or hear the word of god? So, what I'm trying to say is that maybe the Bible doesn't have all the answers to life.  Once, Christianity came around they punished those who believed in the old religion.  All the religious beliefs were probably started by people way back in the day who couldn't explain why something happened or why are here, or as my good friend has always said, religion is a good way to control to people, do what we say or we will persecute you or you'll go to hell.  Christians can apparently explained dinosaurs in the bible, but that's a bunch of bull. And they say being gay is unnatural, but scientists have proved that peguins and other animals have homosexual relationships.  Religion is the result of human's unknowing.

Edited by kpat86, 10 April 2013 - 08:54 AM.