Please read the questions below as well as answer the final question...

Is it immoral to murder homosexuals?

Is it immoral to murder people that believe in and practice witchcraft?

Is it immoral to murder your son or daughter for hitting you?

Is it immoral to murder your son or daughter for cursing at you?

Is it immoral to murder psychics?

Is it immoral to murder non-believers?

Is it immoral to murder an entire town because one person is a non-believer?

Is it immoral to murder someone who claims to the second coming of the Messiah?

Is it immoral to murder a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night?

Is it immoral to murder anyone who works on the Sabbath?

Is slavery immoral?

Is it immoral to rape someone?

If you answered yes to most or all of these questions....

THEN WHY DO YOU SUPPORT THE BIBLE? <~~ (question to be answered).

"Oh, but that's in the Old Testament and we don't follow that anymore". Then I guess we can as well do away with the 10 Commandments (also in the OT), right? After all, you don't follow the OT.

Is it immoral to murder homosexuals?

Is it immoral to murder people that believe in and practice witchcraft?

Is it immoral to murder your son or daughter for hitting you?

Is it immoral to murder your son or daughter for cursing at you?

Is it immoral to murder psychics?

Is it immoral to murder non-believers?

Is it immoral to murder an entire town because one person is a non-believer?

Is it immoral to murder someone who claims to the second coming of the Messiah?

Is it immoral to murder a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night?

Is it immoral to murder anyone who works on the Sabbath?

Is slavery immoral?

Is it immoral to rape someone?

If you answered yes to most or all of these questions....

THEN WHY DO YOU SUPPORT THE BIBLE? <~~ (question to be answered).

"Oh, but that's in the Old Testament and we don't follow that anymore". Then I guess we can as well do away with the 10 Commandments (also in the OT), right? After all, you don't follow the OT.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no and yes.

IDK...is this a serious thread? The reason i ask is because many dont need to look in a book and still do those things...although some are exclusive like the messiah one but cant recall any recnt murders related to that.

Now that i think about it...any recent claims to being the messiah made headlines? Is this claim made often?

very good thread. that's the problem with fundamental religions. the lack of reason breeds a dishonest type of thinking process.

Please read the questions below as well as answer the final question...

Is it immoral to murder homosexuals?

Is it immoral to murder people that believe in and practice witchcraft?

Is it immoral to murder your son or daughter for hitting you?

Is it immoral to murder your son or daughter for cursing at you?

Is it immoral to murder psychics?

Is it immoral to murder non-believers?

Is it immoral to murder an entire town because one person is a non-believer?

Is it immoral to murder someone who claims to the second coming of the Messiah?

Is it immoral to murder a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night?

Is it immoral to murder anyone who works on the Sabbath?

Is slavery immoral?

Is it immoral to rape someone?

If you answered yes to most or all of these questions....

THEN WHY DO YOU SUPPORT THE BIBLE? <~~ (question to be answered).

"Oh, but that's in the Old Testament and we don't follow that anymore". Then I guess we can as well do away with the 10 Commandments (also in the OT), right? After all, you don't follow the OT.

i support the bible because i believe that christ is the fulfillment of god's law, and unless you're jewish, you have to factor in christ's accomplishments, which are an eternal life and complete freedom through the abolition of sin. you have to factor in that jesus said if you were to only truly love people, the 10 commandments will be a no-brainer. imagine a world without greed, lust, vanity, gluttony, sloth, envy, and wrath. it's hard to do, but try; i think it's worth the intellectual endeavor. no money, no religion, no governments, no taxes, no war, no j.o.b., just the freedom to love others as you love yourself, and you do, and so you should. our salvation.

To paraphrase, "I support the Bible because it describes a Biblical character fulfilling a Biblical edict and doing Biblical things like giving you freedom from a concept that the Bible invented.".

it's hard to do, but try; i think it's worth the intellectual endeavor. no money, no religion, no governments, no taxes, no war, no j.o.b., just the freedom to love others as you love yourself, and you do, and so you should. our salvation.

you need some type of system/systems to keep people accountable and to keep things in order and also so that people don't take advantage of eachother. you also need jobs or nothing gets done. can't just live on love but you do need that too.

the problem is greed. i don't agree with capitalism at all. i don't agree with wealth accumulation. people will justify it any way they can but it is inherently unfair and immoral to me.

If only the bible was just about being nice to other people. It's a great concept, an admirable goal. It's also something the bible doesn't have a monopoly on suggesting, and other parts of the bible kind of fly in the face of that one nice part.

To paraphrase, "I support the Bible because it describes a Biblical character fulfilling a Biblical edict and doing Biblical things like giving you freedom from a concept that the Bible invented.".

the bible didn't invent sin, it just describes what a pain it is and how to get rid of it.

It did invent sin, especially original sin.

Some religions have concepts similar to the sin of Christianity that covers acts made by a person, but the idea of original sin that all persons are born with is definitely Christian specific (that I've found anyway). And yes, not all sects of Christianity follow this, but many do.

It did invent sin, especially original sin.

can you define original sin biblically?

spider, look around, IT OBVIOUSLY HAPPENED. it happened, and some person wrote about it. :shrug:

There is no definition of original sin that is not biblical! It's a reprehensible doctrine and one that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

can you define original sin biblically?

spider, look around, IT OBVIOUSLY HAPPENED. it happened, and some person wrote about it. :shrug:

Pretty sure it was a schizophrenic though! Talking snakes and fruits w/ knowledge of good and evil!

Some religions have concepts similar to the sin of Christianity that covers acts made by a person, but the idea of original sin that all persons are born with is definitely Christian specific (that I've found anyway). And yes, not all sects of Christianity follow this, but many do.

is that what original sin means? that the desires of the flesh are inherent? the bible from start to finish is laden with genetic references. and that our thought and body and environment are all connected. i think the bible describes an evolution of man.

can you define original sin biblically?

spider, look around, IT OBVIOUSLY HAPPENED. it happened, and some person wrote about it. :shrug:

Lori, what do you mean original sin obviously happened? What makes you think that?

There is no definition of original sin that is not biblical! It's a reprehensible doctrine and one that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.


Pretty sure it was a schizophrenic though! Talking snakes and fruits w/ knowledge of good and evil!

do you know, that what eve ingested could have been a lie...a mere thought, that in accordance with science and everything we observe would have changed our bodies and our environments forever?

Lori, what do you mean original sin obviously happened? What makes you think that?

are you serious?

are you serious?

I wouldn't ask if I wasn,t.

a mere thought, that in accordance with science and everything we observe would have changed our bodies and our environments forever?
Huh?

is that what original sin means? that the desires of the flesh are inherent? the bible from start to finish is laden with genetic references. and that our thought and body and environment are all connected. i think the bible describes an evolution of man.

No, it's the setup for inherent guilt, a tool by which the Church can use to control and promote the following of its rules. There's no reason in the world to believe that something your ancestors did you are responsible and accountable for, unless you are convinced that the words in the bible are infallible.

People aren't perfect, but original sin takes that and runs with it, saying that everyone is born already corrupt, and the only way you're getting out of it is to buy our solution. So you better believe.

No, it's the setup for inherent guilt, a tool by which the Church can use to control and promote the following of its rules. There's no reason in the world to believe that something your ancestors did you are responsible and accountable for, unless you are convinced that the words in the bible are infallible.

People aren't perfect, but original sin takes that and runs with it, saying that everyone is born already corrupt, and the only way you're getting out of it is to buy our solution. So you better believe.

we are inherently responsible and accountable for what our ancestors did. i'm born into a world and society and family that i did not create and i'm the genetic product of people i didn't choose, and what people could be perfect? "people aren't perfect".

Huh?

if you took two identical worlds, and introduced one human thought to one but not the other, over time, you would ultimately end up with two entirely different worlds.

if you took two identical worlds, and introduced one human thought to one but not the other, over time, you would ultimately end up with two entirely different worlds.
Possibly.
But you claimed that this "thought" changed our bodies. Forever. And that science has shown this.
Please provide a link.

we are inherently responsible and accountable for what our ancestors did. i'm born into a world and society and family that i did not create and i'm the genetic product of people i didn't choose, and what people could be perfect? "people aren't perfect".

So say your great grandfather murdered someone. So you and the rest of your descendants have to continue to answer for that crime?

Does that make sense? Do you even believe that people are individuals with their own free will?

we are inherently responsible and accountable for what our ancestors did.

Thats kind of ridiculous but if you want to say that we cannot deny what humanity has done in the past, like many delude themselves into some kind of fantasy of abdication we see in the majority of the posters here, then that is a different matter.

All i say is "whatever makes you (the responders here) feel good" and isnt that what delusion is about? Convincing yourself about something not entirely true.

They dont want to swallow that bitter pill.

"Hey...look at me, i'm different" But are you (speaking in general terms) really?

Abdication? Majority of posters?

Thats kind of ridiculous but if you want to say that we cannot deny what humanity has done in the past, like many delude themselves into some kind of fantasy of abdication we see in the majority of the posters here, then that is a different matter.

All i say is "whatever makes you (the responders here) feel good" and isnt that what delusion is about? Convincing yourself about something not entirely true.

john, we're all born into what our ancestors, and their ancestors, and their ancestors and so on did, and we have to deal with it. that's the truth.

Possibly.
But you claimed that this "thought" changed our bodies. Forever. And that science has shown this.
Please provide a link.

our thoughts determine the way we live and the way we live determines our physical makeup. you know that already.

our thoughts determine the way we live and the way we live determines our physical makeup. you know that already.
If we act on them.
Provide evidence for one thought affecting our bodies and those of all our descendants.
Please.

john, we're all born into what our ancestors, and their ancestors, and their ancestors and so on did, and we have to deal with it. that's the truth.

That isnt true. Legally we are not held responsible either. Children of murderers are often times very good people and by the same token good parents have children who commit very bad crimes. You do reap the rewards, through financial inheritance, but that is just in a material way. Its funny because people can have children that are nothing at all like them. They show no signs whatsoever of their parents personalities, in fact a stranger can be more like you than your own child. Sure you have similar appearance but personality is very different.

We are all individuals but we are all still human so yeah i say being part of the human species means that i cannot extract myself from the bad things across the board but i cannot be held accountable. Aside from that, my ancestors were very good.:D

That isnt true. Legally we are not held responsible either. Children of murderers are often times very good people and by the same token good parents have children who commit very bad crimes. You do reap the rewards, through financial inheritance, but that is just in a material way. Its funny because people can have children that are nothing at all like them. They show no signs whatsoever of their parents personalities, in fact a stranger can be more like you than your own child. Sure you have similar appearance but personality is very different.

We are all individuals but we are all still human so yeah i say being part of the human species means that i cannot extract myself from the bad things across the board but i cannot be held accountable. Aside from that, my ancestors were very good.:D

really, you're going to say that, living in the same world i am...that your ancestors were good? and all of that goodness left behind this bounty of goodness for you?

really, you're going to say that, living in the same world i am...that your ancestors were good?

Yes.

If we act on them.
Provide evidence for one thought affecting our bodies and those of all our descendants.
Please.

ok, let's take one thought and introduce a lie.

for one person, let's change the thought "i am beautiful" to "i am ugly". think about how that one thought could change the lifestyle of the believer, and how the change could impact the believer's offspring, and their offspring, and so on, and so on. we live in a world full of lies and it has a direct impact on our health and our evolution.

ok, let's take one thought and introduce a lie.

for one person, let's change the thought "i am beautiful" to "i am ugly".
How would that be a"lie"?
Beauty is a perception. A personal judgement.
In other words someone who is beautiful to one person may well be considered ugly to another.


think about how that one thought could change the lifestyle of the believer, and how the change could impact the believer's offspring, and their offspring, and so on, and so on. we live in a world full of lies and it has a direct impact on our health and our evolution.
That is a thought that would have to be acted upon, constantly - i.e. not a "mere thought".
And you still haven't shown how it affects ones body. Or done anything other than claim that it "could" affect their offspring.
And no hint of "science"...
So far all you're doing is waffling. As usual.

we live in a world full of lies and it has a direct impact on our health and our evolution.

It isnt so bad. That does sound very similar to the other psoters, in this thread, though.

We are not going to get rid of bad people 'cause they are born every day. We do see less of the institutionalized bad as in fascist dictators and what goes with that. So i cant say things are not getting better.

It isnt so bad. That does sound very similar to the other psoters, in this thread, though.
Other posters in this thread have a direct impact on our health and evolution?
Or other posters are lying?
Links please.

Other posters in this thread have a direct impact on our health and evolution?
Or other posters are lying?
Links please.

No, the others mindset.

Ah right. You're incapable of quoting what you want to reply to.
And those mindsets would be...?

Holy crap. I start the thread and come back a few hours later and its exploded to 3 pages already. Ill have to add my two cents to various comments tomorrow. I'm check this from my phone and its a pain to type long responses on these itty bitty keys.

do you know, that what eve ingested could have been a lie...a mere thought, that in accordance with science and everything we observe would have changed our bodies and our environments forever?
The lie was probably the vain desire for a God.


john, we're all born into what our ancestors, and their ancestors, and their ancestors and so on did, and we have to deal with it. that's the truth.
All of our ancestors were successful by definition. I for one am proud of that. I won't disgrace them by calling them sinful, you don't even know them.

ok, let's take one thought and introduce a lie.

for one person, let's change the thought "i am beautiful" to "i am ugly". think about how that one thought could change the lifestyle of the believer, and how the change could impact the believer's offspring, and their offspring, and so on, and so on. we live in a world full of lies and it has a direct impact on our health and our evolution.

this is one of the wisest things i've read from you. i think you mean the lie can become the truth from deception so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. a person can end up believing a lie and that lie can even influence their actions and it becomes a domino effect in the world or one can cheat another which changes another's destiny etc.

this is true, unfortunately. the world is full of deception of many kinds.

The lie was probably the vain desire for a God.

i believe the lie was that they would not die if they ate.



All of our ancestors were successful by definition. I for one am proud of that. I won't disgrace them by calling them sinful, you don't even know them.

i wouldn't call them any more sinful than i would call myself.

really? you're even remotely satisfied with the way we live?

How would that be a"lie"?
Beauty is a perception. A personal judgement.
In other words someone who is beautiful to one person may well be considered ugly to another.

a perception that may not be based in truth. take a beautiful baby who's psycho parents tell it how ugly and stupid and worthless it is every day growing up, only to be confirmed by an extremely superficial and materialistic society in adulthood.



That is a thought that would have to be acted upon, constantly - i.e. not a "mere thought".
And you still haven't shown how it affects ones body. Or done anything other than claim that it "could" affect their offspring.
And no hint of "science"...
So far all you're doing is waffling. As usual.

isn't some level of belief implicit in the term "lie"? there are an infinite number of incorrect assertions one could make, but the lie commences when these incorrect assertions are used to perpetuate a fraud, and are believed to the extent in which people base decisions on them.

this is psych 101. a good indicator of how many lies are being perpetuated is the number of psychologists and psychiatrists in business, how many people are on a drug, or doing drugs, or have eating disorders, or are abusive, or self-destructive because they're lonely, depressed, angry, or sad. most psychologists spend most of their time trying to undo lies that people have been conditioned by, and control or reverse the symptoms that the lie manifests itself into. it's interesting too that certain biological or genetic conditions or traits can affect what a person believes.

a perception that may not be based in truth. take a beautiful baby who's psycho parents tell it how ugly and stupid and worthless it is every day growing up, only to be confirmed by an extremely superficial and materialistic society in adulthood.
No you're missing the point entirely: that baby is not in fact beautiful - it's judged/ perceived to be - by others. Or not... "Beauty" is nothing more than a "value judgement" - and that judgement varies with each individual.


isn't some level of belief implicit in the term "lie"? there are an infinite number of incorrect assertions one could make, but the lie commences when these incorrect assertions are used to perpetuate a fraud, and are believed to the extent in which people base decisions on them.
Huh? A lie is knowingly saying something counter the facts as known by the speaker.


this is psych 101. a good indicator of how many lies are being perpetuated is the number of psychologists and psychiatrists in business, how many people are on a drug, or doing drugs, or have eating disorders, or are abusive, or self-destructive because they're lonely, depressed, angry, or sad. most psychologists spend most of their time trying to undo lies that people have been conditioned by, and control or reverse the symptoms that the lie manifests itself into.
Maybe you should move up to psych 201. This is not the actual case.

No you're missing the point entirely: that baby is not in fact beautiful - it's judged/ perceived to be - by others. Or not... "Beauty" is nothing more than a "value judgement" - and that judgement varies with each individual.


Huh? A lie is knowingly saying something counter the facts as known by the speaker.


Maybe you should move up to psych 201. This is not the actual case.

the point is people can think opinions are facts. do we not argue about religion here for the same reason?

or how about if one believes all people with freckles should be exterminated or are ugly? if enough people believe their opinion is a fact, then it can be used against others.

the point is people can think opinions are facts.
And you appear to be missing the "point" of this particular part of the dispute:
Lori claimed that a single thought changed our bodies (and those of our descendants). Forever. And that science has shown this.

I have asked her to substantiate this and she's waffling.

And you appear to be missing the "point" of this particular part of the dispute:
Lori claimed that a single thought changed our bodies (and those of our descendants). Forever. And that science has shown this.

I have asked her to substantiate this and she's waffling.

she may have made a mistake in saying that 'science' has some concrete proof in a box but what she said is very obvious.

what one thinks will most often determine their actions so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

in japan, fishermen used to throw crabs back in the water that resembled samurai's to them so therefore more of the ones who resembled those particular features were greater in number.

also, if you have lower self-esteem, more than likely you will have negative thoughts of yourself which could undermine your health as well as the type of actions you take and vice versa. even mood or stress affects your body and it can affect it long-term. this could affect their offspring as well as those around them.

maybe not literally 'forever' in all cases but it could create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

she may have made a mistake in saying that 'science' has some concrete proof in a box but what she said is very obvious.
Yes, it's obvious what Lori said, but her premise has, so far, not been shown to be correct.


what one thinks will most often determine their actions so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And as I have pointed out numerous times: that requires action. The existence of the thought itself cannot do anything without a follow-on.

Please go back and read the the thread.

The existence of the thought itself cannot do anything without a follow-on.

so you really think that your thoughts can't affect your mood and level of stress which would have an impact on your body, with or without even taking any action?

do i need to go looking for this as well to prove it? is it too common sense?

un-fuking believable.

so you really think that your thoughts can't affect your mood and level of stress which would have an impact on your body, with or without even taking any action?
Hmm, one more time:
Lori's contention was that a single thought did all of this.
In the case above are you not referring to a thought that is repeated and reinforced?
Her claim was that this one thought affected the bodies of Adam and Eve, and the bodies of each and every one of their descendants. And she has also argued (elsewhere) that this change was "genetic".
NOW do you get it?


do i need to go looking for this as well to prove it? is it too common sense?
un-fuking believable.
Quite...
Do try to read the thread. Then you'll have some idea of what the discussion is.

Hmm, one more time:
Lori's contention was that a single thought did all of this.
In the case above are you not referring to a thought that is repeated and reinforced?
Her claim was that this one thought affected the bodies of Adam and Eve, and the bodies of each and every one of their descendants. And she has also argued (elsewhere) that this change was "genetic".
NOW do you get it?




but you disagreed even though she explained the point that it was not just a single thought but one that leads to a perpetuating belief or opinion of oneself or another.

you countered that a lie is is knowingly saying something counter the facts as known by the speaker which is not the only type of lie. it can just be a false or inaccurate belief that it's a fact when it may not be.

either of those can be used to perpetuate something oneself or against others.

it can just be a false or inaccurate belief that it's a fact when it may not be.
A lie is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.

A lie is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.


noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
4.
the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

one can believe in a lie as well as spread lies or untruths intentionally or unintentionally.

isn't this being a bit nitpicky just to ignore the point they were making? they should have said a possible falsehood but there aren't that many words for possible untruths in the dictionary. believing in a lie or possible untruth vs spreading it ad nauseum. also, there point had also to do with a lack of humanity towards others which lowers their self-esteem. even if one thinks another looks ugly, doesn't mean they should mistreat them. it may be something they cannot help. it's like mistreating someone who has ms with a wrangled body.

so i think this is being taken out of context just to pick apart technicalities. i've seen far lazier crap that no one even bothers clarifying.

but you disagreed even though she explained the point that it was not just a single thought but one that leads to a perpetuating belief or opinion of oneself or another.
Also wrong.
When she raised the spurious point of perpetuating belief that was an attempt to justify (by way of [false] example) her original contention.


you countered that a lie is is knowingly saying something counter the facts as known by the speaker which is not the only type of lie. it can just be a false or inaccurate belief that it's a fact when it may not be.
Not quite correct since the lie is the fact the speaker does in fact believe the opposite. I.e. he's saying something which he in fact believes not to be true.

one can believe in a lie as well as spread lies or untruths intentionally or unintentionally.

isn't this being a bit nitpicky just to ignore the point they were making? they should have said a possible falsehood but there aren't that many words for possible untruths in the dictionary.

so i think this is being taken out of context just to pick apart technicalities. i've seen far lazier crap that no one even bothers clarifying.
I think they forgot to mention that it has to be intentional.

I think they forgot to mention that it has to be intentional.

unfortunately, sometimes it is.

just because someone believes something, it doesn't always justify it either.

just because someone believes something, it doesn't always justify it either.
True, but that doesn't mean that it's a lie. If the one telling something untrue doesn't realize that he's telling something untrue it is not a lie.
There has to be intent to decieve for it to be a lie.

True, but that doesn't mean that it's a lie. If the one telling falsehoods doesn't realize that he's telling falsehoods it is not a lie but just a falsehood.

true, but often we do use the word 'lie' to mean both. it's in the use of context that we understand it.

i think in this instance, it's a bit unfair to this point.

true, but often we do use the word 'lie' to mean both. it's in the use of context that we understand it.

i think in this instance, it's a bit unfair to this point.
Yeah, I edited. Sorry, English is not my first language and I got hold of the wrong word there.
:o

No matter. You understood it as I meant it.
I do never use the word "lie" when there is no intent to deceive involved, nor does anyone I know.
People may accuse a person of lying when he's telling something that's not true, but that's just because they assume that the person did it on purpose.

Yeah, I edited. Sorry, English is not my first language and I got hold of the wrong word there.
:o

No matter. You understood it as I meant it.
I do never use the word "lie" when there is no intent to deceive involved, nor does anyone I know.
People may accuse a person of lying when he's telling something that's not true, but that's just because they assume that the person did it on purpose.

my point was that i think it was taken too much out of context. the 'lie' they are referring to is a belief whether it was perpetuated by someone intentionally. the problem with lies is one can use it with the pretext that there is no objective proof otherwise, so therefore it is not a lie when under those reasonings where it actually icould be because they have no proof otherwise as well. it's just their opinion. they may tell themselves they are not being deceiving but it still can be, it's just ignoring the other possibility that it may not be true.

No you're missing the point entirely: that baby is not in fact beautiful - it's judged/ perceived to be - by others. Or not... "Beauty" is nothing more than a "value judgement" - and that judgement varies with each individual.


Huh? A lie is knowingly saying something counter the facts as known by the speaker.


Maybe you should move up to psych 201. This is not the actual case.

that is the actual case, and the baby is in fact beautiful. people find a lot of reasons not to love themselves or each other, but the truth is there is no good reason. so i would say that all of those reasons are lies, or based on lies, that people believe. if those lies were exposed, removed, or corrected, i think it would have a positive effect on people physically and mentally and on the environment, all of which becomes part of us genetically, and becomes our future generations.

that is the actual case, and the baby is in fact beautiful.
No. This another example of your peculiar outlook on things.
Beauty is a value judgement. It is not a "fact".


if those lies were exposed, removed, or corrected, i think it would have a positive effect on people physically and mentally and on the environment, all of which becomes part of us genetically, and becomes our future generations.
Also wrong.
How does a lie "become part of us genetically"?

that is the actual case, and the baby is in fact beautiful. people find a lot of reasons not to love themselves or each other, but the truth is there is no good reason. so i would say that all of those reasons are lies, or based on lies, that people believe. if those lies were exposed, removed, or corrected, i think it would have a positive effect on people physically and mentally and on the environment, all of which becomes part of us genetically, and becomes our future generations.

the lie is based on the that it's usually an opinion as well as the possible hidden malicious motives which are using any objective reason. so all in all, that could be the big fat lie.

so rather than the technical reason they cite may not even be the real issue.

for instance, sometimes when couples argue, they bring up issues that have nothing to do with the conversation or maybe one will complain the other never does dishes but the real reason they are upset is left out or not exposed etc.

Is it immoral to murder...

Then I guess we can as well do away with the 10 Commandments

thou shall not kill.

thou shall not kill.

What about mercy-kills?

What about mercy-kills?

i was quoting the ideal..
unfortunately humanity is not ideal..humanity finds exceptions to all the rules..

i was quoting the ideal..
unfortunately humanity is not ideal..humanity finds exceptions to all the rules..
I think it's immoral to withhold a mercy-kill.
Rules that are as pretentious as the ten commandments should cover all bases, otherwise they are worthless.

I think it's immoral to withhold a mercy-kill.
Rules that are as pretentious as the ten commandments should cover all bases, otherwise they are worthless.

I thought they were pretty clear..."the feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn" and "thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk" are very clear...

Oh, you mean the other ten commandments.

thou shall not kill.

PRECISELY!!! Someone caught on here!

So, if killing is a sin then why does God himself order the murder of so many people throughout the bible? Seems hypocritically ignorant.

PRECISELY!!! Someone caught on here!

So, if killing is a sin then why does God himself order the murder of so many people throughout the bible? Seems hypocritically ignorant.

Hey, if God can be above time and space and everything else in the physical universe (which is a pleonasm if I ever saw one), he can sure be above his own rules.
;)

No. This another example of your peculiar outlook on things.
Beauty is a value judgement. It is not a "fact".


On a side note, there is some evidence that beauty is, at least to some degree, objective. For example, images that include the Golden Ration are more pleasing to the eye. Many painters and photographers use it to determine where to place certain objects in there works. People also subconsiously look for this ratio in the proportions of human faces and it is one of several factors when looking for a mate.

On a side note, there is some evidence that beauty is, at least to some degree, objective. For example, images that include the Golden Ration are more pleasing to the eye. Many painters and photographers use it to determine where to place certain objects in there works. People also subconsiously look for this ratio in the proportions of human faces and it is one of several factors when looking for a mate.

interesting how a theist would focus so much on the physical. this stuff just never stops boggling.

the issue was just 'beauty' in general. beauty is not just physical, i'm surprised you don't know that considering, i don't know, jesus christ is one example in your religion? there are others in different religions.

besides it is just common sense and anyone can learn this just by life experience. we tend to like and dislike people not just based on their physical characteristics but their mental, emotional and personality and moral value characteristics.

what this means is one person can find aggression attractive or admirable while they scoff at anything tender while for another it's just the opposite. pay attention: this is why a child or even an adult can be mistreated or disliked by another if they have opposite or different tastes, views or characteristics. democrat vs republican, atheist vs theist, baseball vs football and the list goes on. it's not necessarily that one is beautiful or not beautiful, funny or not funny, ugly or not ugly, left-handed or right-handed ad nauseum. it's just differences.

after all, even the story of jesus is that he was persecuted. that doesn't mean that he deserved it either necessarily. you see this also in domestic situations where couples divorce because of differences or parent/child relationship can be strained because they are so different from eachother. it's very myopic and extremely superficial to not realize something this obvious. we live it everyday.

same goes for moral values since it will differ with each person. people tend to find attractive those with similar values.

same thing goes with looks for the most part. i don't agree with above since even if they think someone is attractive, it doesn't mean they are personally attracted. i can open up a magazine and agree that they are attractive people but personally attracted is another issue.

i see people tend to choose people that are similar to them not only in character but also looks as far as seeing them as equals and respect. when they don't, there is usually an ulterior motive to use or exploit or there is some kind of imbalance in the relationship.

Hey, if God can be above time and space and everything else in the physical universe (which is a pleonasm if I ever saw one), he can sure be above his own rules.
;)

Nevertheless it is hypocritical in nature seeing that (according to monotheistic dogmas) that God created rules that we MUST obey or be punished. Yet, he himself has no rules to abide by...? I suppose that goes back to morality and free will. But on the same hand, now that I think about it, that is a good argument against theism. If God was to have provided us 'free will', how is it 'free' if we get punished for making the wrong choice?

And of course, this goes back to the discussion of natural liberties and is there really such a thing as complete freedom.

So many topics, so little brain capacity lol

On a side note, there is some evidence that beauty is, at least to some degree, objective. For example, images that include the Golden Ration are more pleasing to the eye. Many painters and photographers use it to determine where to place certain objects in there works. People also subconsiously look for this ratio in the proportions of human faces and it is one of several factors when looking for a mate.

A timely cartoon (http://xkcd.com/877/)

No. This another example of your peculiar outlook on things.
Beauty is a value judgement. It is not a "fact".

this is a great example of why humans make poor judges. certainly there's no correct reason why a baby would be deemed ugly. can you think of one?



Also wrong.
How does a lie "become part of us genetically"?

because what we believe in large part determines the quality of our lives, from what we eat, to how we spend our time, how much exercise we get, how stressed out we are, what our environment is like, and who survives for how long; it's our evolution.

this is a great example of why humans make poor judges.
Compared to whom?


certainly there's no correct reason why a baby would be deemed ugly.
What do you mean "no correct reason"? You still seem to be assuming that beauty is a "fact" and not a perception.


can you think of one?
Certainly. If I consider that baby to be ugly then that's my reason.
It's quite simple. It is not pleasing to my eye.


because what we believe in large part determines the quality of our lives, from what we eat, to how we spend our time, how much exercise we get, how stressed out we are, what our environment is like, and who survives for how long; it's our evolution.
And this becomes "part of us genetically" how?
I take it from the above that you're contending also that we all believe this particular thing? Each and every one of us?

Compared to whom?

not whom. that's my point. compared to what is correct.



What do you mean "no correct reason"? You still seem to be assuming that beauty is a "fact" and not a perception.


Certainly. If I consider that baby to be ugly then that's my reason.
It's quite simple. It is not pleasing to my eye.

but why wouldn't it be? could it be that you've laid eyes on the child of the devil?!



And this becomes "part of us genetically" how?
I take it from the above that you're contending also that we all believe this particular thing? Each and every one of us?

no, everything we believe, collectively. i know shocking; we're communal beings.

and we are self-fulfilling prophecies, according to what we believe. i bet you can explain to me why people today possess certain traits people didn't have decades or centuries ago. why are people taller in the us? why do they live longer? why is obesity an epidemic in the us? diabetes? cancer? drug addiction? you do realize that none of these traits are the result of anything natural except for our thought, and what we believe, and continue to have a genetic impact on us now more than ever, within the realm of genetic engineering. our beliefs become more poignant.

and we are self-fulfilling prophecies, according to what we believe. i bet you can explain to me why people today possess certain traits people didn't have decades or centuries ago. why are people taller in the us? why do they live longer? why is obesity an epidemic in the us? diabetes? cancer? drug addiction? you do realize that none of these traits are the result of anything natural except for our thought, and what we believe, and continue to have a genetic impact on us now more than ever, within the realm of genetic engineering. our beliefs become more poignant.

natural is just a word that can be defined in any way but according to the universe, everything that exists or occurs here is natural in the sense it is a product of the universe.

everything you dislike, another could like or be perpetuating it. this is why it's basically and ultimately a zero sum game.

the game is over with death. you can't take your knowledge with you, your money, your experiences, memories etc.

it just was an experience, nothing more or nothing less. there is no inherent value in it except for the living to survive and if possible, attain a bit of happiness during it.

not whom. that's my point. compared to what is correct.
And yet you haven't actually answered the question...


but why wouldn't it be?
Why should it be? Do you think I should consider each and every person to be beautiful in appearance?
I so what does "beauty" actually mean?


no, everything we believe, collectively. i know shocking; we're communal beings.
And this becomes "part of us genetically" how?


you do realize that none of these traits are the result of anything natural except for our thought, and what we believe
False.
You're assuming again.

natural is just a word that can be defined in any way but according to the universe, everything that exists or occurs here is natural in the sense it is a product of the universe.

everything you dislike, another could like or be perpetuating it. this is why it's basically and ultimately a zero sum game.

the game is over with death. you can't take your knowledge with you, your money, your experiences, memories etc.

it just was an experience, nothing more or nothing less. there is no inherent value in it except for the living to survive and if possible, attain a bit of happiness during it.

that's some notable inherent value, thank you.

And yet you haven't actually answered the question...

law. according to law, not to whom, but to what.



Why should it be? Do you think I should consider each and every person to be beautiful in appearance?
I so what does "beauty" actually mean?

you need a link to a definition of beautiful? if the answer is so correct or obvious then give me an example.



And this becomes "part of us genetically" how?


False.
You're assuming again.

ah...i give you links!

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1820836,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancyhttp://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1820836,00.html

law. according to law, not to whom, but to what.
There's a law that judges/ defines beauty?


you need a link to a definition of beautiful?
I said "beauty".


if the answer is so correct or obvious then give me an example.
You're misreading. Find me ANY link that does not allow for a subjective opinion. One that declares that I should consider all babies to be beautiful.


ah...i give you links!
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1820836,00.html
Contradicts your point. That says its better diet and better health care.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancyhttp://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1820836,00.html
Fails miserably: Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name