That's some top quality posting, right there. Dodger never exceeds your expectations.

When you are a human being you don't need to be saved from being human. When you are a jackrabbit you don't need to be saved from being a jackrabbit. When you are a rock do you don't need to be saved from being a rock.

It's made up. Use some skepticism. Use a reality standard instead of buying into ancient superstition.

I certainly don't agree that the Bible teaches "ancient superstition." But suppose someone decides to believe in something that really is an ancient superstition. What's wrong with that? Why is believing in ancient superstitions less virtuous than being skeptical? If we are all just highly-evolved pond scum, why not just enjoy our brief stay on this planet by seeking meaning through ancient superstitions?

... Asks only the mind that doesn't care about what is true. Your question is why does truth matter outside my chosen belief system? And by extension, what does it matter if I rape and murder if there is no Jesus telling me not to do it? Morality doesn't come from the supernatural, but from the very natural. And in fact you do know why reality matters, why murder matters ... it is only the religious smoke screen that pretends not to. Likewise, you actually do know why and how the peckings of a dog on the piano are inferior to a Beethoven composition ... but when arguing for the religion you say there is no way to tell except for what Jesus says about it. BS.

Kind of like killing witches is okay ... it's just a superstitious belief and we are pond scum, so fine, burn my wife at the stake. Right? If my religion, one of thousands, isn't the ultimate nature of things ... then burn my wife at the stake. Right? And my kids. Because I'm a good moral agent like this.

On the following of Jesus teachings making one inerrantly moral: Obedience of this kind in itself is immoral. Obedience itself is immoral. Obedience itself is immoral. By sacrificing agency, you end up saying, "If I hear god's voice in my head saying kill, I kill. And it's moral." Which god? The one who killed millions in the Bible. What's the problem?

Lighten up, Isaac.

Well done. Very well done.

I care very deeply about what is true. And I think you do, too.

Please construct a valid argument that has the conclusion "Raping women solely for my personal pleasure is morally wrong" that does not commit the Naturalistic Fallacy. Thanks.

I can recognize that truth matters, and that murder is wrong, and that Beethoven is better than Bowser(woof! woof!) the same way that you can: Because all of us are made in the image of God.

I obviously don't know your wife, but since she is married to you, I suspect that burning her at the stake would probably be doing her a big favor.

Just kidding!!!! (No, really, just joshin' with ya!).


True (?) Story:

Sir Winston Churchill is drunk (again) at a party. A lady is rather disgusted with Sir Winston's behavior, and says to him, "Sir, if you were my husband I would put poison in your morning tea."

Churchill snapped back, "My dear, if you were my wife, I would drink it!"

Good thing for you that being redundant isn't immoral.

You keep using variations on this request as if it is a gotcha question. What do you think the effect of this question could have on a non believer? That they'll be confused as to whether rape is immoral?

It's especially confusing since the way rape is usually defined is as a moral wrong. You've asked someone to argue that label x, which is usually defined as a type of y, is a type of y, as if that's difficult.

If you don't accept the definitional aspect then you're asking for something that no-one can possibly provide, including you.

I think that everyone knows that rape is wrong because God gave everyone a conscience (although one's conscience can be seared by unrepentent sin).

I think you make an excellent point here. I will rephrase my request:

Please construct a valid argument defending the following claim:

It is morally wrong for a man to force a woman to have sexual intercourse with him (against her unambiguous vocal objection to him doing so) merely because doing so would bring him pleasure.

Well, they're praying for the victims and their families in Boulder. What do you think Jesus will do? He could turn time back (he overrules nature all the time), he could resurrect the victims, he could have stopped the shooter before he ever went. Nope, none of those. But he could forgive the shooter ... sending him to heaven and the dead to hell.

When a religion plays like this in reality, it's not only bizarre and indefensible - it's evil.

I don't see anything that has changed with this rephrasing, you just switched from using the label to the definition of that label.

A moral wrong is an action / behaviour that causes unnecessary harm to another person (broadly speaking). Unless that comes as a surprise to you, then you're still asking for an argument showing that an action that causes unnecessary harm to another person is a moral wrong, when that is what is meant by the meaning of moral wrong.

What problem are you expecting?

Moral is what god says it is. That's how righteous genocide is moral. Hello.

Yeah, well the redundancy is for effect to try to get it through the heads of those who think that sacrificing one's agency and opting for utter obedience is a good thing, a moral thing. Now, apply that to the specific instance of utter obedience to a killer of millions in "his" holy book, and you can get a glimpse of why ONLY such presupposition and indoctrination can support this "obedience morality." Or maybe you can offer another example of someone who killed some 20 million men, women and children ... and nonetheless is worthy of utter obedience as a moral doctrine. I think you should consider stopping that.

Occasionally, one has a profound thought.

Still waiting for yours.

Well. What if her eyes say "Yes"?

Hi, BF.

Based on your observations above, would you find the following argument acceptable?:


Premise One: A person has acted immorally if that action results in another person being harmed unnecessarily.

Premise Two: If a man has sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, then another person has been harmed unnecessarily.

Conclusion: If a man has sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, then the man has acted immorally.

P: h --> i

P: s --> h

C: s --> i

For the wages of sin is death...

The only man who ever died who didn't deserve to die was Jesus Christ. All people have earned death. (A wage is something that has been earned.) Death is the just outcome of sin.

...but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. - Romans 6:23

The bad news is that each of us have earned death because we have sinned against a holy God.

The Good News is that each of us can receive the gift of eternal life that can only come from trusting in Christ for your salvation.

While none of us will live forever here on Earth, all of us will live forever somewhere. Where will you be living for eternity?



And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement - Hebrews 9:27

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. - Revelation 20:12-15



And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. - Revelation 21:4-5


God loves justice and God loves mercy. At death, all of us will be a recipient of God's love: Either His love of justice, or His love of mercy. Which will it be for you?

Premise 1.
I should be asleep right now, having taken Ambien, but woke up prematurely. Never a great idea.

Premise 2.
I'm not asleep, but not clear headed awake either. I feel quite invested in this story.
Is they're something I should do?
Do I need to call the police?

Premise 3.
Because of P1 and P2, I'm going to mostly ignore the propositional symbology you wrote (e.g. h --> i , s --> h , s --> i)

All you need to say is that immoral behaviour is another way of saying causing unnecessary harm or suffering to another person. This way, every occasion of action or behaviour that causes unnecessary harm of suffering can be labelled immoral.

While bearing in mind there is plenty of nuance waiting to be applied.


Hmmm..
Perhaps I should have just replied
with "sure".

The good is an approximation of the great. It can help us relate to the great which is distant. Still, the good is the enemy of the great. Eternal life is only available to the people who desire and have faith in greatness. Not for the people who trade the distant for the local and trade greatness for goodness.

The world has objective qualities but is also reflective of our subjectivity. If all you focus on is depravity, then the world has plenty of that to keep offering you. Nothing changes for you until you change.