Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Lost faith
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
If we define murder as unlawful killing it becomes dependent on who's laws we're bound by. For example, some pro-life types have declared abortion to be a form of murder, others consider assisted suicide a form of murder. I personally don't consider those to be valid definitions of murder but that is not to say they couldn't be enacted as such in law. The converse is more commonly true where I'd consider lawful forms of killing to be murderous. I don't know if you followed the Asia Bibi case for example, who was sentenced to death for blasphemy (and thankfully released some years later) but had she been executed would you consider it murder? Would you consider someone involved in assisted suicide guilty of murder? Again, I think what at face value seems like a universally acceptable moral standard has exceptions and we need to account for context.
I think what you've said here is really helpful, even though I'm going to push back
. At the outset, we should both acknowledge that moral matters can be incredibly complex. But I think we also need to make a distinction between discerning whether a certain act is right or wrong (which can be incredibly difficult, with all its context) and the basis on which we make those kinds of judgements.
I make moral judgements on the basis that right and wrong are objective values established by God. I would say that it is objectively wrong to deliberately kill the unborn, sick or infirm, and objectively wrong to kill people for blaspheming. I think those statements hold true regardless of what any government legislates one way or the other.
So, whose laws am I bound by? Ultimately, God's laws which are objectively true and valid. Our country's laws should mirror them as far as possible, and in so far as they do they are truly just and good. Where they don't, I take comfort in the fact that God is perfectly just in a way that we can only approximate and that he will, in the end, right all wrongs and make all things right.
What about you? Taking the Asia Bibi case as an example, what is your basis for saying that Pakistan would have been wrong to execute her? If it was legal there, and the people involved thought it was right, why should they take account of your subjective beliefs?0 -
-
I think what you've said here is really helpful, even though I'm going to push back. At the outset, we should both acknowledge that moral matters can be incredibly complex. But I think we also need to make a distinction between discerning whether a certain act is right or wrong (which can be incredibly difficult, with all its context) and the basis on which we make those kinds of judgements.
I make moral judgements on the basis that right and wrong are objective values established by God. I would say that it is objectively wrong to deliberately kill the unborn, sick or infirm, and objectively wrong to kill people for blaspheming. I think those statements hold true regardless of what any government legislates one way or the other.
So, whose laws am I bound by? Ultimately, God's laws which are objectively true and valid. Our country's laws should mirror them as far as possible, and in so far as they do they are truly just and good. Where they don't, I take comfort in the fact that God is perfectly just in a way that we can only approximate and that he will, in the end, right all wrongs and make all things right.
What about you? Taking the Asia Bibi case as an example, what is your basis for saying that Pakistan would have been wrong to execute her? If it was legal there, and the people involved thought it was right, why should they take account of your subjective beliefs?
For an objective view with the broadest consensus and acceptance on how we should treat one another, I'd tend to go with UN Human Rights treaties, where the OHCHR has an international mandate in this respect. So while Pakistani law allows for execution for crimes such as blasphemy, it is in breach of international human rights treaties in doing so, which I, and I believe most people, would hold as the higher authority.
Where this is very different from religious morality is that these rights are arrived at by consensus and are refined as our understanding of the human condition changes. So for example as we were discussing previously, where religious dogma might state that marriage can only ever be between a man and a woman, a basic human right is not to suffer discrimination based on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. While at a personal level you might subscribe to a religious code of conduct, our society is a secular one.0 -
-
antiskeptic wrote: »This is an everyday experience: IF daddy keeps on pointing to cars on the street AND he keeps on saying "CAAARRR" to his boy-in-arms whilst pointing at said car THEN the baby child will one day, to his dads's surprise and delight issue forth his first word on seeing car go by: "CAAAR".
Daddy is the one who makes it all happen. Babe-in-arms is merely the receiver. In the case of me on this thread I'm rendered but the bearer of the good news: "God exists".
Don't shoot the baby in arms. CAAAR!
Shooting babies aside, while a rather unusual metaphor it does bring up a rather interesting point. Why do most people believe in god? In my opinion, it is because the people they trust most, i.e. parents and teachers, tell them god exists from a young age. Why do those parents and teachers believe in god? Because their parents and teachers did the same for them. Put more simply, religious belief comes largely from tradition and is inherited from the society your born in. So for example, if you had been born in Pakistan, how likely do you think it is that you would 'know' god existed?
There are exceptions of course where people take to religion or change religion in later life, but this represents a tiny fraction of the nominally religious population.
Oh, and god takes rather more work than CAAARs, because the dad can say GODDD all day long but the baby still isn't going to see what's not there
0 -
Advertisement
-
Shooting babies aside, while a rather unusual metaphor it does bring up a rather interesting point. Why do most people believe in god? In my opinion, it is because the people they trust most, i.e. parents and teachers, tell them god exists from a young age. Why do those parents and teachers believe in god? Because their parents and teachers did the same for them. Put more simply, religious belief comes largely from tradition and is inherited from the society your born in. So for example, if you had been born in Pakistan, how likely do you think it is that you would 'know' god existed?
There are exceptions of course where people take to religion or change religion in later life, but this represents a tiny fraction of the nominally religious population.
Oh, and god takes rather more work than CAAARs, because the dad can say GODDD all day long but the baby still isn't going to see what's not there
I understand your position. And its not an unreasonable hypothesis. Indeed, I think your are right to a significant degree.
However, we are dealing with a statement you made earlier which I have countered (and I think that counter unassailable).
Unless you assail (is that a word?), then the logic stands and your statement falls. And needs to be withdrawn.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
The discussion and attempted ratification of my opinion, or yours for that matter is of no interest to me. I have heard and read it all before in a variety of different guises, and it bores me at this point. I do not find it stimulating in the slightest, because at its base we are too far apart for their to be any fruitful result.
I do however take umbrage at people using a book that was written by the hands of men to try and make granite claims.
Just because the bible says something doesn't give it some standardised irrefutable level of general acceptance. That's just what you think and believe, and it is part of the reason why I cannot have a meaningful discussion with you.
That's not to say I am offended by you, just that prolonged discussion with you is a waste of my time.
Your faith is your own, not mine.
I think you're in the wrong forum then having read your post.
Perhaps you should try the gardening or farming fora!! 0 -
Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »I think you're in the wrong forum then having read your post.
Perhaps you should try the gardening or farming fora!!
Agreed.
Perhaps not on the gardening or farming, but my time is better spent elsewhere.
As a parting comment for the OP....
Losing one's faith might seem difficult at first, but having faith is not necessary for everybody to find meaning and happiness in their existence. It might be integral for some people but not all.
All the best OP.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement