₦airaland Forum

Butterflyleo:
Morals are not subjective if they have already been preset.

By set, do you mean by subjective something/someone at some point in time, and despite other morals set by other subjective somethings or someones, which you, as a Christian, disregard?

budaatum:
By set, do you mean by subjective something/someone at some point in time, and despite other morals set by other subjective somethings or someones, which you, as a Christian, disregard?

Not by someone/ something in your context and view but by someone/ something beyond your view.

Thoughts of good or evil did not just arrive. They are already prewired into our DNA. Something we did not influence.

HardMirror:
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! So you have powers? Like harry potter or the X men? You are living in your imaginations.

X men me thinks operating in the spirit realm of the matrix.

Butterflyleo:
Wrong!

So, subjective individuals do not create morals? Or their creation of morals is not subjective?

Which is it, and how?

Anas09:
If i'm a dunce, wow, what will i call you?

A humanist, superhumanist.

HardMirror:
take it easy. They are kids with special needs.

Now don't insult them special babies by likening these bunch of vultures to them.

These ones have chunks of decaying meat where there hearts should be.

budaatum:
So, subjective individuals [b]do not[/b]create morals? Or their creation of morals is not subjective?

Which is it, and how?

I am speaking about as a christian and not as AN EVERY DAY INDIVIDUAL. As Christians we cease to be just INDIVIDUALS because we are in this world BUT NOT OF THIS WORLD.

This means that our moral codes are not derived from here but came preset.

Besides even evolutionary scientists also tell us that moral responses were first on a genetic level prior to anything else so if these responses were not preset, on a genetic level how then would we know right from wrong without the Involvement of our DNA?

Since they also admit that the origin of DNA is still a mystery to them then that means man did not influence the source but rather are being influenced even when they claim they are in charge subjectively.

cc vaxx

budaatum:
Hey! Petty seller. Who's the "we" ?

Hey Petty Buyer. It is good to hear from you after my long spiritual journey into the LIGHT.

Lol. Your question seems tongue in cheek or laced with "Petty" sarcasm.

No offence taken Sir. I admire they way you extracted the one piece of gold in my post.

"WE" is the nugget of gold that points to the reality of the powerful foundation upon which the highly esteemed BUTTERFLYLEO operates.

Anas09:
Someone who reads Harry Potter is talking about intelligence Wow.

No be your type abeg.

Breakfast is served. Choke on it.
"Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, and the six sequels that followed it, worked the kind of magic most publishers could only dream of, selling well over 450 million copies and turning their author into a billionaire. Inspiring a devotion among fans last seen around the time of Jesus Christ, Potter became a global phenomenon."

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/20-years-harry-potter-fuss/amp/

ScienceWatch:
Therefore, you admit that your deity known as No-god also exit, but atheists are ashamed to speak of him, instead they froth at the mouth and mock a God they all agree do not exist.
BUTTERFLYLEO must be commended for the dignified manner in which he dismantled the very foundations of Atheism.

What manner of gobbledygook is this?

Butterflyleo:
There are no conflicting positions. ALL THE POSITIONS YOU CALL CONFLICTING ALL ARE FOUND IN SCRIPTURE. true or false?

Where are they to be found in the scriptures?

dalaman:
Where are they to be found in the scriptures?

You are the one who said they are conflicting so that means you already should know where they are to be found.

That's the premise you already set.

Butterflyleo:
You still don't get it. Each of those examples you just gave are not subjective but are all based on one common denominator and that is THE BIBLE.

EVERY ONE OF WHAT THEY DO COMES FROM AN ALREARY EXISTING MORAL FOUNDATION WHOSE THRUST IS JESUS.

Can you now say they act OUTSIDE what is found in the bible?

If your answer is no then how then are they being subjective when their foundation is not based on a personal view but their view is already set for them scripturaly and all they are doing is working with it.

True or false

True, one source but so many different applications coming from it.

So how can they all hold different views when they all claim its from the same source?

Either the source permits all of it, hence neither has the right to judge another for its allocation. Or there is subjectivity at play here which would beg the question, why doesn't this ONE source mitigate the subjectivity?

Butterflyleo:
You are the one who said they are conflicting so that means you already should know where they are to be found.

That's the premise you already set.

All I see are Christians upholding conflicting moral values. You claim it's from the scripture, so can you show us from scripture where the two conflicting moral values are written?

dalaman:
All I see are Christians upholding conflicting moral values. You claim it's from the scripture, so can you show us from scripture where the two conflicting moral values are written?

I did not make any claim. You are the one who made the claim out of nowhere when you attempted a red herring and you said it was conflicting.

How did you know it was conflicting if you did not know where they are to be found in the scriptures and are now asking me for where they are to be found?

Premise dalaman, premise!

Butterflyleo:
You don't have to say it or support it. The very definition of subjectivity clearly says so

subjectivity
noun
the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

It clearly says its FEELINGS, TASTES AND OPINIONS are BASED ON AND INFLUENCED BY THE INDIVIDUAL and not society.

That means that its INDIVIDUAL FIRST BEFORE SOCIETY. So this means if I had a subjective morality, then my happiness or comfort comes first before society.

Do you deny the very definition?

It would only come first if it mirrored in a greater proportion of the wider society. I. e lots of other people share the same subjectivity with you, hence it becomes widely applicable (majority carries the vote etc)

But if you are in the minority, then your "personal" proclivities remain just that, personal. Subjective to you but with no chance of expression because should you try it, it would be met resistance from those who have greater support for their own subjective perspective.

budaatum:
Hey! Petty seller. Who's the "we" ?

Hey Petty Buyer. It is good to hear from you after my long spiritual journey into the LIGHT.

Lol. Your question seems tongue in cheek or laced with "Petty" sarcasm.

No offence taken Sir. I admire they way you extracted the one piece of gold in my post.

"WE" is the nugget of gold that points to the reality of the powerful foundation upon which the highly esteemed BUTTERFLYLEO operates.

I trust that you will effectively define the "WE."

Butterflyleo:
I did not make any claim. You are the one who made the claim out of nowhere when you attempted a red herring and you said it was conflicting.

How did you know it was conflicting if you did not know where they are to be found in the scriptures and are now asking me for where they are to be found?

Premise dalaman, premise!

You've started with your false projections . I say I see Christians projecting conflicting morality, it is in moral for women to make up, wear tight jeans and tight short sleeve shirt with open flowing hair in their church, but it is not moral for a lady to do such in Christ embassy.

This is just an observation and evidence that christian morality is subjective. You then started with your source. I do not need to know about any source .All I know is that christians display conflicting and subjective morality because their morality is not the same everywhere.

shaybebaby:
It would only come first if it mirrored in a greater proportion of the wider society. I. e lots of other people share the same subjectivity with you, hence it becomes widely applicable (majority carries the vote etc)

But if you are in the minority, then your "personal" proclivities remain just that, personal. Subjective to you but with no chance of expression because should you try it, it would be met resistance from those who have greater support for their own subjective perspective.

I am forced to educate you again.

Read your post again...S L O W L Y

If you do you would see you spoke in support of my words and you showed clearly that subjectivity is INDIVIDUALIZED and society does not dictate to me this subjective position when I can circumvent it or take advantage of it in my bedroom, hidden away, in another country, etc.

There is no vote to what is seen as subjective AKA PERSONAL. It is you FIRST before others. Of course there would be others who would hold your subjective position as theirs but not because there was a vote but because it is what they want and are FIRST comfortable with for themselves.

When such INDIVIDUALS COME TOGETHER then they form a subjectively moral society which is quite different from when other folks come together and form an objectively moral society which is why we have nations being tagged as CHRISTIAN NATIONS and others as PAGAN OR MUSLIM NATIONS or even SECULAR NATIONS.

dalaman:
You've started with your false projections . I say I see Christians projecting conflicting morality, it is in moral for women to make up, wear tight jeans and tight short sleeve shirt with open flowing hair in their church, but it is not moral for a lady to do such in Christ embassy.

This is just an observation and evidence that christian morality is subjective. You then started with your source. I do not need to know about any source .All I know is that christians display conflicting and subjective morality because their morality is not the same everywhere.

There is no false projection from me. You did all the false projections when you began asking me for proof of what you threw in as a red herring.

I was not talking about the bible and its followership until you threw in your red herring about conflicts and since you can claim there are conflicts, then you should be able to show where the conflicts came from in the bible and how and not to ask me to prove the claim you made for you.

That is dishonesty

budaatum:
Welcome back dear. Where have you been? Your services were missed. Do take leave when you next dissapear so we don't have to wonder about you!

So, you, who has the "intelligence to understand what you wrote here". Explain it to us please.

It is alway good to hear from you my dear. I have forwarded my apologies for taking leave without permission.
But you deserve my personal apologies my dear.

Thanks for recognizing that I do have superior understanding of the OP and BUTTERFLYLEO'S supernatural insight.

Butterflyleo:
There is no false projection from me. You did all the false projections when you began asking me for proof of what you threw in as a red herring.

I was not talking about the bible and its followership until you threw in your red herring about conflicts and since you can claim there are conflicts, then you should be able to show where the conflicts came from in the bible and how and not to ask me to prove the claim you made for you.

That is dishonesty

I did NOT mention the bible at any point, you brought the bible into the discussion. Christians display conflicting morality and that is the fact. Their morality is subjective as I've shown you. Where they get it from is non of my business , all am interested in is showing you that Christians display subjective morality and that I have done. Source or no source is non of my business. If Christian morality is objective all Christians will accept a standard system or morality. The conflict that is displayed by the deeper life and Christmas embassy for example will not exist.

Butterflyleo:
I am forced to educate you again.

Read your post again...S L O W L Y

If you do you would see you spoke in support of my words and you showed clearly that subjectivity is INDIVIDUALIZED and society does not dictate to me this subjective position when I can circumvent it or take advantage of it in my bedroom, hidden away, in another country, etc.

There is no vote to what is seen as subjective AKA PERSONAL. It is you FIRST before others. Of course there would be others who would hold your subjective position as theirs but not because there was a vote but because it is what they want and are FIRST comfortable with for themselves.

When such INDIVIDUALS COME TOGETHER then they form a subjectively moral society which is quite different from when other folks come together and form an objectively moral society which is why we have nations being tagged as CHRISTIAN NATIONS and others as PAGAN OR MUSLIM NATIONS or even SECULAR NATIONS.

Since individuals do not live in silos but in societies, your personal subjectivities HAS to conform to the wider society's else it is DOA.
So yes I agreed that everyone HOLDS their personal ideals but those ideals cannot be PRACTICED if they do not conform to the wider society.

dalaman:
I did NOT mention the bible at any point, you brought the bible into the discussion. Christians display conflicting morality and that is the fact. Their morality is subjective as I've shown you. Where they get it from is non of my business , all am interested in is showing you that Christians display subjective morality and that I have done. Source or no source is non of my business. If Christian morality is objective all Christians will accept a standard system or morality. The conflict that is displayed by the deeper life and Christmas embassy for example will not exist.

When your rather shallow reasoning is exposed you jump on the next available train and embark on another fruitless journey.

Did you forget you demanded for where such conflicts are found in the bible despite being the one who first said Christians have conflicting morals?

Were you not the one who began your questions with mentioning the bible when I never did?

If your premise says there are conflicts then you should be able to show where those conflicts are using the moral foundation you claim is supposed to be used by all Christians which is the bible and not to now ask me to show you this when I never made such a claim.

Now when you cannot produce any you suddenly say "source or no source is none of your business" despite saying the below earlier

dalaman: 10:50am

Where are they to be found in the scriptures?

That was you asking me for evidence for a claim you made. Talk about being confused or being deliberately mischievous.

You keep talking about conflict but still cannot show me this conflict from the same bible you claim they are conflicting.

shaybebaby:
Since individuals do not live in silos but in societies, your personal subjectivities HAS to conform to the wider society's else it is DOA.
So yes I agreed that everyone HOLDS their personal ideals but those ideals cannot be PRACTICED if they do not conform to the wider society.

Such ideals would not exist if the individuals never FIRST EXISTED.

The society wasn't made for the individual, the Individual was made for the society.

Same way laws were not made for men but men for the law.

Without man there would be no need for laws as it is man who makes the laws effective or ineffective.

Every law was first AN INDIVIDUAL IDEA prior to societal acceptance and they still remain individual ideas even after societal acceptance.

Societal acceptances simply show that it is THE INDIVIDUAL people who share the same ideals who would accept it but those who don't and still also hold their own INDIVIDUALLY OPPOSING ideals would be seen as law breakers and that is why we have criminals and crime.

It is simply people with their own INDIVIDUAL IDEALS which oppose other generally accepted INDIVIDUAL ideals.

Butterflyleo:


When your rather shallow reasoning is exposed you jump on the next available train and embark on another fruitless journey.

Did you forget you demanded for where such conflicts are found in the bible despite being the one who first said Christians have conflicting morals?

Were you not the one who began your questions with mentioning the bible when I never did?

If your premise says there are conflicts then you should be able to show where those conflicts are using the moral foundation you claim is supposed to be used by all Christians which is the bible and not to now ask me to show you this when I never made such a claim.

Now when you cannot produce any you suddenly say "source or no source is none of your business" despite saying the below earlier



That was you asking me for evidence for a claim you made. Talk about being confused or being deliberately mischievous.

You keep talking about conflict but still cannot show me this conflict from the same bible you claim they are conflicting.

You are a joke.

You brought the issue of the bible. I only pointed that Christians display subjective morality and I gave examples. You then said this:

Butterflyleo:
There are no conflicting positions. ALL THE POSITIONS YOU CALL CONFLICTING ALL ARE FOUND IN SCRIPTURE. true or false?

You said they are not conflicting position and that all positions are found in the bible, true or false, I refused to take your bait and told you to show me from the scripture where the two positions are to be found. You brought the scripture into it so show it.

All I did was sight examples to show that Christian morality is subjective which I've done. Any other thing is unnecessary commentary from you because I didn't mention the bible when giving my example.

Butterflyleo:
Such ideals would not exist if the individuals never FIRST EXISTED.

The society wasn't made for the individual, the Individual was made for the society.

Same way laws were not made for men but men for the law.

Without man there would be no need for laws as it is man who makes the laws effective or ineffective.

Every law was first AN INDIVIDUAL IDEA prior to societal acceptance and they still remain individual ideas even after societal acceptance.

Societal acceptances simply show that it is THE INDIVIDUAL people who share the same ideals who would accept it but those who don't and still also hold their own INDIVIDUALLY OPPOSING ideals would be seen as law breakers and that is why we have criminals and crime.

It is simply people with their own INDIVIDUAL IDEALS which oppose other generally accepted INDIVIDUAL ideals.

Butterboy,

I want to open a thread where we can debate subjective morality in Christianity.

No abuses, just facts.

Are you game?

dalaman:
You are a joke.

You brought the issue of the bible. I only pointed that Christians display subjective morality and I gave examples. You then said this:



You said they are not conflicting position and that all positions are found in the bible, true or false, I refused to take your bait and told you to show me from the scripture where the two positions are to be found. You brought the scripture into it so show it.

All I did was sight examples to show that Christian morality is subjective which I've done. Any other thing is unnecessary commentary from you because I didn't mention the bible when giving my example.

You do not even see your premise staring at you.

YOU USED THE TERM CHRISTIANS

So what do Christians have in common if not Jesus and the Bible? Would you pretend not to know this? Wow.

So why would I then mention the Bible if you did not FIRST mention CHRISTIANS?

Still confused?

Your premise always kills you even before you begin.

Also mark the time you FIRST MADE THIS CLAIM BELOW

dalaman: 7:29am

You've done justice to the nonsense Butterflyleo was saying about Christian objective morality.

The various sects within Christianity do not even have the same view on morality. A deeper life views a lady not covering her hair and applying too much make up as immoral but a christ embassy doesn't see it as such.

A woman can not preach or become a priest in a Catholic church , it is immoral but she can be a pastor and preach living faith church

What time does it say? So who is the huge joke and being dishonest now?

superhumanist:
Butterboy,

I want to open a thread where we can debate subjective morality in Christianity.

No abuses, just facts.

Are you game?

Read my OP again since assimilation eludes you.

Butterflyleo:
Read my OP again since assimilation eludes you.

Sorry, I cant read the op. I'm allergic to bullshite.

I think we should have the debate though

superhumanist:
Sorry, I cant read the op. I'm allergic to bullshite.

I think we should have the debate though

Not with a child! That would be child abuse.

Butterflyleo:
Not with a child! That would be child abuse.

Oh, I didn't know that you see yourself as a child