First let me say I have told some privately I was done posting in this forum.
To participate in a view censoring forum where you are in fear of what you say will get censored or you banned is growth restricting and takes away from creative freedom.
However against better judgement, I believe I owe this post another reply as I started thread.
Hypocritical yes, but Im working on that so I will take it as a learning experience
Second, let me clarify that Im not suggesting (despite what I may personally feel)
that you have to believe in bible or Christian G (g) od to have morals.
If u derive your morals from nature fine and dandy. Just define them. If you have -subjective morals, you really dont have morals (principles) objectively I submitted.
You dont have a poured concrete foundation to stand on.
In essence, you've built a house on sand.
For example,
Let's say your neighbor grows a luscious garden
(Sorry i just love gardens and growing things)all spring and summer in spare time and you decided to just go to lake and party, you'll buy all your food from the market.
Then that winter something awful happens and no food is available at the market. You're in serious danger of starvation. Your neighbor initially shares the food he calculates he can spare. You decide that your neighbor has got more than he is sharing so you sneak on his land and take some grain.
As do the rest of your partying neighbors.
Pretty soon the neighbor is about to starve right with you. AND decides enough is enough and takes what he has left and splits somewhere no one can easily get his food.
Facing sure death, you and a couple other neighbors decide to go to the hideout of the man that has some food left and kill him and take his food.( even if you dont kill him you have gave him death sentence by taking food)
Hey, gotta keep the species going.
So not having enough food for you and all co conspirators to survive, you kill execute the man that worked his ass off to harvest the food in the first place.
Who had the better morals in the story?
Is it even a relevant question?
Would it be ok to go head and kill your co conspirators as food gets even lower?
What does the story say about the nature of human beings/animals?
Ideally, what morals would you like to subscribe to?
What makes them superior to someone else's morals?
Do your ideal morals run across the board for everyone, or is it ok to break them in respect to self.
I could ask questions for days .....
Basically where does your authority for setting objective/subjective morals come from?
Do they apply across the board to everyone as well as self.
All views welcome.
Christian G (g)od belief/ lack of belief is irrelevant to questions I presented.
That argument objection has been sustained.
. And, yes, the christian god does have some defining qualities
