₦airaland Forum

thehomer: Sure they could but is that a significant difference when it comes to comparing humans to e.g a preying mantis?

Why a praying mantis, why not a chicken, a gorrilla, a dog, a shark or an ant. What exactly is this "significant" difference that prescribes what moral actions a man ought to take?

thehomer: This is not an answer to the question I asked you but I'll answer yours. I hope you'll answer mine.

It is wrong when it comes to moral considerations.

What are these moral considerations if I may ask?

thehomer: That still doesn't stop it from showing what religious orthodoxy is.

If I asked you how it aptly describes religious orthodoxy I am sure you would be able to tell me. Would you mind doing the honors good sir.

thehomer: Do you think that the fact that humans are "smarter" and can exercise judgement is something significantly different?

Don't you also think that they can use their smartness and better judgment to come up with more effective ways of r[color=#000000]api[/color]ng women and torturing babies for fun?

thehomer: But I see how apt it is when it comes to religious orthodoxy.

Nah, Orthodoxy is the name of the book itself, that passage was in reference irrational skepticism it (is believed GK Chesterton was criticizing George Bernard Shaw for his politics and two-way criticisms on both the church of england and those who criticized the church). You might want to read the book, it is quite a good read.

If I asked you how it aptly describes religious orthodoxy I am sure you would be able to tell me. Would you mind doing the honors good sir.

Deep Sight: Let me translate from English to English to suit your unfortunate situation:

[size=14pt]The man of this school goes to a forum and argues that humans should not be considered as animals in terms of their morals. He then picks his hat and umbrella and proceeds to a scientific meeting where he argues forcefully that human are animals.[/size]

LWKMD! ! !

Honestly? As, in, really? Tell me you don't work with a travelling circus!

Hahahahahahahaaha! Joker!

Abeg DeepSight, no use laugh wound me this morning. It still amuses me that he really can't see it

thehomer: You do know that there are many different species of animals out there.

Lololololol..........does this mean that there might be some species of animals we can derive moral precepts from?

thehomer: Still don't see your point here. Does the man of this school go to the scientific meeting to beat up his colleagues and take their land?

The general point of the quote is pretty clear. When you start splitting it up, you'll just be destroying his point.

Lol, as I said, I never expected you to get the point.

thehomer: That's just it. I don't know how you're using it.

too bad. Perhaps if you told me what you know the word sacred to mean, I might be able to help you

You said:

That means if two people come to you and ask for a drink, it is fine to give them both milk irrespective of the individual feature of someone being lactose intolerant.

But then you wouldn't be giving them milk in the same context. To one you would be giving him milk knowing that it he is lactose intolerant and to another you would be giving milk knowing that he isn't

Okay how about taking care of babies for fun and taking care of babies for money. Which is more moral?

Again you have presented two different moral contexts

Deep Sight: This gets more and more hilarious. He writes the above and turns about to insist that humans are animals. Men, it really cant get any funnier that this! Just read the bold, and then reflect on the fact that this same man says humans are animals!



O, to each his own. Spiders may eat partners, they are animals. No wrong there. Lions may kill cubs, they are animals, no wrong there. Humans may murder, r.ape and plunder. They are animals, no wrong there.

Capisce?

thehomer: Humans don't derive their moral precepts from other animals so comparing what animals do with respect to trying to discover moral ideas is a waste of time.

thehomer: This is just ridiculous. Humans are animals. They're not plants or bacteria, they belong to a certain taxonomic kingdom. You just seem unable to see past the error in your reasoning.

.........[size=13pt]The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts[/size].......

- GK Chesterton (1908)

thehomer: Yes. Is there a contradiction? I know what it means. You're using the word in a strange way.

Please explain how I am using the word in a strange way.

Your comment didn't say anything about it.

What do you think I said? Explain what you understood from my comment so I know if you read me correctly.

Yes. Taking care of babies for fun is more moral than torturing them for fun. Now is there a spectrum of right and wrong answers to the question of 2 + 2?

But taking care of babies for fun is an entirely different moral activity from torturing babies for fun. In the same way that 3+3 is greater than 2+2 but 3+3 and 2+2 are entirely different mathematical exercises.

@DeepSight. . . .and here is what I think a good description of Pastor AIO

"We know that we know nothing," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge --
"There are no absolutes," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute --
"You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, or a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

thehomer: I don't know. It looks to me like it fits the description of Christians. Unless you think Christians aren't "modern people" in any way.

Ah orthodoxy. Like any word better describes Christian dogma.

Lol, I didn't expect you to agree that it describes you.

thehomer: He also made it fit the rectum, mouth, hand and even genitals of other animals. Last time I checked, people don't have to be married to have sex and for some reason, God was fine with marriage between a man and multiple wives. Sex is sacred in what sense? Sacred like prayer?

Remember you said we don't draw our morality from the actions of animals. Secondly, you'll have to look up what sacred means in a dictionary.

No it didn't.

What did you understand my comment to be about and in what ways do you think that it didn't address your question?

Is there a spectrum of right and wrong answers to 2 + 2?

Is there a spectrum of right and wrong moral answers for torturing babies for fun?

Deep Sight: And the veritable clown does not realize that animals do this. Tomorrow, he will claim to be an apostle of logic.

Simple logic.

1. Animals do this.

2. According to him, humans are animals.

He then complains when humans do this.

Because, of course, he says that we are different!

Notwithstanding the fact that all about us, humans "commit" these actions everyday!

This guy is a court jester!

Lol, I quite like how the chap can shift from position to position as it suits him. I think this quote by G.K. Chesterton about The Modern Revolutionary describes him quite well.

The modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . .

As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself...

The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.
In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.
Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”

― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

thehomer: How have you managed to determine this? And you never responded to my question on the lactose intolerant person.

Because God made man's g[color=#000000]eni[/color]tals in such a way that they fit a woman's ge[color=#000000]nita[/color]ls perfectly for the purpose of bringing offspring. The act of s[color=#000000]e[/color]x is a sacred act and it is validated through the institution of marriage between a husband and wife.
Acts like adultery, prostitution, fornication, pornography, homosexual s[color=#000000]e[/color]x, bestiality etc are an abuse of the sacredness of [color=#000000]se[/color]x.

About your lactose question, my comment on context has addressed it sufficiently.

thehomer: No I haven't because as I said, the person who tortures babies for fun isn't being moral. You're just ignoring the fact that man can also be an immoral being. Just as man is a being with sight yet we have people who cannot see. This is one of the reasons why morality isn't like mathematics. Morality is on a spectrum from more moral to immoral but the answer to 2 + 2 isn't on such a spectrum.

And once again you have agreed that a there are objectively correct and incorrect answers to moral questions as there are objectively correct and incorrect answers to mathematical questions. Torturing babies for fun is immoral just like 2+2=5 is unmathematical

Here's another one. This one touches my heart:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

Francis Chan: Lukewarm and Loving It

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBhqrtMqrv8

Paul Washer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncEhCvrVgQ

Ravi Zacharias: The Meaning of Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk5aJ1v0sBo





William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens: Does God Exist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

Ihedinobi: Twin bro, that was powerful. Hilarious but very sobering too. Hit me with another.

Eureka, I have found them! The God of love series:

http://deeperamazement./2011/03/20/guest-michael-ramsden-rzim-god-of-love-series/

They are no longer on youtube but the 5 videos were all embedded in the link above, [size=13pt]make sure you watch them all.[/size]

thehomer: Generally speaking, yes.

Then you have answered your question. You have agreed that a moral being can torture babies for fun. . . . unless of course you think man would never torture babies for fun.

Yet the Bible agrees with me about what that God did.

whatever rocks your boat.

thehomer: If it was that clear, then surely you could use that to answer the question.

Let's see. How do you determine what is objectively wrong for you to classify it as such? e.g is homosexuality objectively wrong?

Ho[color=#000000]mosex[/color]ual s[color=#000000]ex[/color] is objectively morally wrong in the same way i[color=#000000]nce[/color]st is objectively morally wrong.

thehomer: Would a moral being torture babies for fun?

Is man a moral being?

Not my perception, but what is already written in the Bible about him. Unless what is written in the Bible is wrong, I don't see how it is my perception being wrong and not your perception being wrong.

Yawn. your perception.

thehomer: So is it truly good to forgive offenses for money?
Is it truly good to save a child from drowning for money?



Is it moral to give milk to someone who is lactose intolerant?

A deliberate attempt to miss the point. My answer was quite clear

It cannot be in the same way that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong because as I've said before, they're in different categories and it is a category error to make that comparison. One is mathematically wrong, the other is morally wrong.

They are wrong in the same sense that they are both objectively wrong.

mazaje: They were wrong even at that time because killing and stealing were wrong even at that time. They themselves claimed the egyptians did them wrong by enslaving them, meaning even at that time they knew that enslaving others was wrong. . .From my first post I stated that if such men were alive today no body will consider them as good prophets but as war criminals. . .

Interesting, was there ever a time when killing and stealing was not wrong? If so when?

thehomer: Well, it does for you to be a moral being.

No it doesn't and you haven't shown how it does.

I'm assuming you're talking about the Christian God. How could humans have derived their morality from such a blood thirsty tribal God?

here we go again. Your perception of God does not determine His nature

thehomer: Do you notice what you did there? For what you consider as being truly evil, you attached reasons i.e you said they were for fun but for what you consider as being truly good, you didn't. Is there a reason for that?

How about:
It is truly good to forgive offenses for money.
It is truly good to save a child from drowning for money.

Does that make the forgiveness or child rescuing no longer truly good?

An action cannot be called a moral action if it isn't done for a reason. For instance you would blame a man who deliberately bumps into you and be more willing to pardon one who was shoved into your path without his intention. You can't just blurt out "bumping into people is wrong" without providing context.

What you are failing to realize is that in the exact same context, the exact same moral principles apply regardless of societal or individual bias,
To torture a baby for fun is always morally wrong everywhere and every time in the same way 2+2=5 is wrong . . .and this is despite whatever contrary opinion a person might hold on the matter.

mazaje: You know these things yet you still go about defending the bible and many of such actions in the OT?. . .

Another red herring. I'll ask you to start a thread and show the verses where they are endorsed. By the way, are you now suddenly endorsing objective morality?

Kay 17: Your orange and human example, I don't agree to it.

My examples added to yours, prove that morality is beyond mere principles, it goes beyond to application to reality and even understanding of the rules. Jesus himself found an eye for an eye principle faulty. Jesus made a field day with Mosiac laws, why becuase Jesus' perception of them in his own days/his reality, was different.

Sabbaths seem absurd. Unbelievers/sinners had natural entitlement to salvation. New Testament focussed more on poor people, rather than kings and priests.

I will also say that mathematics is not merely principles, it goes beyond to application in reality. As for Jesus finding an "eye for an eye" faulty, that's inaccurate as Jesus did not come to abolish the law, He came to fulfill it besides I fail to see how Jesus and the Mosaic laws fit into our discussion.

thehomer: They're derived by multiple sources like the effects of certain actions on other humans and some other animals, empathy, reasoning.

This is simply you jumping from an is to an ought. The effects of actions on other animals doesn't place a demand on an individual to act in any particular way towards it.

Where do you think humans derive their moral precepts?

God

thehomer: You're ignoring the fact that good and evil actions aren't just about the mind, but also about the body. Is any action truly good or truly evil? Is it truly good to give away all your wealth? Is it truly evil to kill a man?

Yes some actions are truly good or truly evil e.g.
1. It is truly evil to r[color=#000000]ape[/color] women for fun.
2. It is truly evil to torture babies for fun.
3. It is truly good to forgive offenses.
4. It is truly good to save a child from drowning

This to me just misunderstands rationality. Could we have evolved to actually think that 200 apples were less than 2 apples?

And this illustrates my point exactly. Morality like rationality is not something that we evolved but something that stands by itself

mazaje: Its not even about me, I have told you that our morality has evolved so much now that we consider slavery a bad thing and land grab is theft. . .If Moses and Joshua were alive today he will be tried for genocide, land grab, theft and murder and ethnic cleansing. . .

Let me get you right, will you hold that Moses and Joshua's actions were not morally wrong in their time because morality hadn't evolved?

thehomer: Humans don't derive their moral precepts from other animals so comparing what animals do with respect to trying to discover moral ideas is a waste of time.

Interesting. From where if I may ask do humans derive their moral precepts?