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.
Biblical Morality
- Thread starter Thoreau
- Start date
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.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Yeah, I edited. Sorry, English is not my first language and I got hold of the wrong word there.
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.
Last edited:
Yeah, I edited. Sorry, English is not my first language and I got hold of the wrong word there.
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.
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.
No. This another example of your peculiar outlook on things.
Beauty is a value judgement. It is not a "fact".
Also wrong.
How does a lie "become part of us genetically"?
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.
thou shall not kill.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What about mercy-kills?
i was quoting the ideal..
unfortunately humanity is not ideal..humanity finds exceptions to all the rules..
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
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.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
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.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
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.
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
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.
Last edited:
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
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
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?
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.
Compared to whom?
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.
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?
not whom. that's my point. compared to what is correct.
but why wouldn't it be? could it be that you've laid eyes on the child of the devil?!
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.