Good night Gracie!
Good night Gracie!
Goodnight George.
Actually, they had a basis for believing it was right; a deeply held, fervently believed faith which commanded the killings and described the rituals for obedience. Much the way many religions command their adherents to perform certain acts at certain times in a certain manner for certain reasons.
For many, many people who have not yet committed themselves one way or the other, the claim of the Judeo-Christian faith being the only source of right behavior is very much a chicken-or-egg question. Did an all-powerful god deliver a decree of right behavior to a tiny sub-set of humanity (with an additional command to ‘spread the word’), or did human society discern, perhaps through much trial and error, these precepts of behavior and then ascribe them to a commanding god to give them greater authority, as well as to eliminate any possible argument?
I have observe that nothing in this universe is absolute except for that which is believed to be absolute. Is belief alone enough to make it so?
Goodness, if that were the case…why…it could explain the existence and persistence of all the many thousands of cultures which preceded and coexisted while have nothing whatever to do with Religion X or Religion Z.
But without the secret handshake and trademark taboos conveying the authority of [insert belief system here] we wouldn’t know how to distinguish ourselves from [insert other belief system here] in order to justify taking what nonbelievers have.
Or maybe it would be ok to just let people believe more or less whatever they want as long as they don’t get too full of themselves — with a rule, say, like: “Our system shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That could work, couldn’t it?
But who would support it?
I would love to hear how that works in a way that is not self-referential. I.e., we cannot merely say that man is special because man has decided they are special. Man had to first be special in order to have the authority to make such a claim. That’s the self-referential problem.
So without being self-referential, why can I kill and eat a cow but I cannot morally do the same with humans?
Why does this question remind me so of the “When Faced with a Brave Idiot” topic posted in February? Could it be the ad hoc limitations in how the question must be answered?
There are many who would tell you you cannot “morally” kill and eat a cow. Why do you think you can? (Without being self-referential, please.)
Because the society you affiliate with has agreed amongst its members that it is immoral to eat Democrats, but it is not immoral to eat head cheese. Another society might come to the opposite conclusion.
There is no self-referential “problem”. It is only through reference to one’s self and one’s community that human values arise — sometimes nearly universal and sometimes unique; sometimes in infinite wisdom and sometimes in comic or tragic error (e.g. Man is of greater value than any other living creature or anything else). Occam might suggest that no supernatural forces are required.
The connection of this discussion to USCCA is of course…
I wasn’t at that meeting and I will not be governed that way.
I don’t want to affiliate with society. In my personal life, I just want to be left alone. Trust me, I was social distancing long before it was cool.
Aaaah! Cannibal! Watch out!
(or perhaps lunch meat opponent, but watch out anyway)
This may seem “disturbing” to some. I have had the experience of observing both animals and humans laying in the ditch and looking at them dispassionately they both look the same.
Bloody, lifeless and still.
Of course, without the ritualized killing in certain societies there would be no Christian salvation.
I agree with you 100%,Would you show me a polite way to counter what is happening in this country with this present LIBERAL GOVERMENT?
Now there’s some things to get you started.
You imply, I assume, that your belief in God is what makes you “special”. Presumably, you must then also believe that a person is valueless without God. In other words, only the belief in “the one true God(s)”, whichever one(s) that is, is what is required make Man “special”? I do not believe Man is “special” due to “God(s)”. We are “special” due to our ability to think, reason, communicate via words and written language, adaptability, creating and using technology, etc. For example, what other creatures on this planet have developed the technology for space travel?
Is not Man supposed to be, according to the Bible, above all creatures and plants? Without God that would not be true, considering all the advantages that we have? How can you morally kill an animal, but not a fellow human? If you need me to answer that for you, you need to re-read your Bible (or whatever religious book you use). I do not need a “God(s)” to tell me what is good and just. For me, I have my inner-strength and belief in goodwill, morality and ethics, whether or not “God(s)” exist.
There is that carnivorous thing about humans, the one that says if you don’t eat you might die or something. But seriously, in the end, humans are just one of the animals on the planet we call Earth. We act like any other animal, we breed, we hunt and gather, we strive to propagate.
“Birth, and copulation, and death; that’s all the facts when you come to brass tacks.”
— T. S. Eliot
Actually, no, not at all. It is not my belief that makes me special. It is God who makes things special. As an image-bearer, I am special, as are all humans.
Well, not really. In some ways, yes, we do resemble other mammals. We differ in many, many ways.
Thanks. 4 years of seminary gave me a pretty good understanding of the distinctions in scripture.