Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

PURPLE

0 (0%)

ALERT

0 (0%)

(I need suggestions is what I'm saying.)

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

[Fenrir]

Forgive me if this seems like an attack on your faith, but I think this kind of debate is why this topic was formed. If you want me to stop, just let me know.

He gave us the capacity for medicine for a reason.

If we justify the use of medicine by stating that God gave it to us for a reason, could we not also say that God gave us the capacity to kill for a reason? Would that not, in a similar fashion, justify killing the man?

I don't know what He wants except through revelation. If He truly wants me to use the bone marrow of this other unfortunate, then He would either speed his natural death or cause him to accept my arguments.

If God's will is revealed to you by things that happen without your intervention, and you then decide that you should not act, because these things are God's will, should you not refrain from intervening in anything at all?

God gives us free will. What we choose to do with it does not necessarily happen through God's will.

I suppose that makes sense, but I do not think that such supports your reasoning.

[RedKing]

I think we need to split religion out of the equation here. We're talking ethics here, not morals.

[Dsarker]

Forgive me if this seems like an attack on your faith, but I think this kind of debate is why this topic was formed. If you want me to stop, just let me know.

He gave us the capacity for medicine for a reason.

If we justify the use of medicine by stating that God gave it to us for a reason, could we not also say that God gave us the capacity to kill for a reason? Would that not, in a similar fashion, justify killing the man?

I don't know what He wants except through revelation. If He truly wants me to use the bone marrow of this other unfortunate, then He would either speed his natural death or cause him to accept my arguments.

If God's will is revealed to you by things that happen without your intervention, and you then decide that you should not act, because these things are God's will, should you not refrain from intervening in anything at all?

God gives us free will. What we choose to do with it does not necessarily happen through God's will.

I suppose that makes sense, but I do not think that such supports your reasoning.

No, it does not justify killing the man. He gave us the world. We used it to create medicine, for example. He created life. He is the lord of life, and thus by deciding that someone must die, we are usurping His domain.

No, we should not refrain from intervening. If it is good to refrain from acting, why would we be given the capacity to act?

[RedKing]

No, it does not justify killing the man. He gave us the world. We used it to create medicine, for example. He created life. He is the lord of life, and thus by deciding that someone must die, we are usurping His domain.

No, we should not refrain from intervening. If it is good to refrain from acting, why would we be given the capacity to act?

Then how do you assess intervening with deadly force in order to stop a murder?

[Fenrir]

I think we need to split religion out of the equation here. We're talking ethics here, not morals.

Why split out religion if it is the reason that he chooses as he does?

I am not sure I know what the difference between ethics and morals is. Google tells me that they are just about the same thing.

No, it does not justify killing the man. He gave us the world. We used it to create medicine, for example. He created life. He is the lord of life, and thus by deciding that someone must die, we are usurping His domain.

If creating life makes God the lord of life, and that means that deciding whether someone lives would be usurping him, that would mean that administering medicine would be deciding someone should live, and thus usurping him.

If God created everything, that would that not mean that God is the lord over everthing, and would that mean that doing anything with anything would be usurping him?

No, we should not refrain from intervening. If it is good to refrain from acting, why would we be given the capacity to act?

If it is good to not murder, why would we be given the capacity to murder?

[Trapezohedron]

Personally, I'm torn between saving this man or murdering him. I wouldn't know my state of sanity at that point. Killing him to save someone is wrong, and it will most likely bite me in my guilty rear, but if I'm decimated into a gibbering lunatic, so to speak, I might actually to the deed.

In short, 85% no kill, 15% kill.

PS: MetalSlimeHunt, you might want to spoiler the first query and paste the second one there.

[shadenight123]

i'd agree with redking about not placing religion in the equation.
for a simple reason.
one can speak to a religious person.
but the results are usually the following:

both agree to disagree (mature person)
one agrees to the other to get him to leave the other in peace.
the two argue until someone comes and stops them
one is an extremist and blows himself up with the infidels.

in the event that one wholeheartedly agrees with the other, either the religious type has "won" over a new faithful, other "atheism" claims a new pupil..
but usually both keep to their ideas until something Extreme happens (death of dear one, cancer diagnose, similar).
in which case an atheist usually becomes a faithful, and a faithful abbandon his god.
or otherwise they keep to their convictions.

this are all the possibilities i think.

the only thing to be pointed out is: everyone thinks with his brain, and with his brain does things... That's all there is. It's not god or the Force, or Satan, or anything which moves the humans hand. It's our neurons and our neurons work through electricity impulse. We might believe we do it for our free will, or for fate, or because god wants that, or anything of the sort, but in the end, we do what we do because we decide to do it. And then, only after we do it, we start saying we did it for a greater purpose, or for something else. (or just because we liked to change the colour of the walls)

it's better not to keep to religious matters, because they go sour quickly. Real quick.

[Dsarker]

No, it does not justify killing the man. He gave us the world. We used it to create medicine, for example. He created life. He is the lord of life, and thus by deciding that someone must die, we are usurping His domain.

No, we should not refrain from intervening. If it is good to refrain from acting, why would we be given the capacity to act?

Then how do you assess intervening with deadly force in order to stop a murder?

Go no more than is needed, and no less than is necessary.

No, it does not justify killing the man. He gave us the world. We used it to create medicine, for example. He created life. He is the lord of life, and thus by deciding that someone must die, we are usurping His domain.

If creating life makes God the lord of life, and that means that deciding whether someone lives would be usurping him, that would mean that administering medicine would be deciding someone should live, and thus usurping him.

If God created everything, that would that not mean that God is the lord over everthing, and would that mean that doing anything with anything would be usurping him?

No, we should not refrain from intervening. If it is good to refrain from acting, why would we be given the capacity to act?

If it is good to not murder, why would we be given the capacity to murder?

Medicines have a 100% success rate, as they usually do....

But seriously, He wants us to live. He gave us this world to enjoy. The Eden story is a metaphor for how things SHOULD AND USED to be. Man lives at peace with his environment, walks with God, and (among other things) doesn't get sick.

While the world is good, our sin has caused us to lose this sanctity of life. Depending on who you ask, the reason we have sicknesses and disease could be that merely they were always there, and God protected us from them. When we rebelled, we threw off that protection, but God does not wish us to die. Thus, we have medicine.

Maybe the devil corrupted the world. God, having given him and us free will, cannot/will not be able to protect us completely, thus He gave us medicine to keep us safe.


Why did He give us the capacity to murder? Because He gave us free will. Look at Alfred Nobel if you want an example of good turned to evil, through our free will.

[Fenrir]

in the event that one wholeheartedly agrees with the other, either the religious type has "won" over a new faithful, other "atheism" claims a new pupil..

I am not actually arguing against the existance of God in this case; I am merely pointing out inconsistancies and illogic in his set of morals.

it's better not to keep to religious matters, because they go sour quickly. Real quick.

I think you are right. This does not appear to be progressing.

At the last, I would at least point out that modern medicine is very far from having a 100% success rate.

[Dsarker]

in the event that one wholeheartedly agrees with the other, either the religious type has "won" over a new faithful, other "atheism" claims a new pupil..

I am not actually arguing against the existance of God in this case; I am merely pointing out inconsistancies and illogic in his set of morals.

it's better not to keep to religious matters, because they go sour quickly. Real quick.

I think you are right. This does not appear to be progressing.

At the last, I would at least point out that modern medicine is very far from having a 100% success rate.

Which is exactly my point.

[Trapezohedron]

God didn't exacrly give the devil free will. Using that logic, wouldn't God be powerless in stopping darkness? It might surprise everyone, but there was a new testament bible verse that God created everything, including darkness.

With that being said, since God is God, wouldn't he be able to prevent darkness? The devil doesn't have free will.

Note that this isn't being directed at his ethics, this is directed to the post he made about God not being able to protect us.

It's like that God - Heavy boulder paradox.

[Dsarker]

God didn't exacrly give the devil free will. Using that logic, wouldn't God be powerless in stopping darkness? It might surprise everyone, but there was a new testament bible verse that God created everything, including darkness.

With that being said, since God is God, wouldn't he be able to prevent darkness? The devil doesn't have free will.

Note that this isn't being directed at his ethics, this is directed to the post he made about God not being able to protect us.

It's like that God - Heavy boulder paradox.

The Devil, as a fallen angel, does have free will.

[RedKing]

I think we need to split religion out of the equation here. We're talking ethics here, not morals.

Why split out religion if it is the reason that he chooses as he does?

I am not sure I know what the difference between ethics and morals is. Google tells me that they are just about the same thing.

Because morality is an external factor, when I think what MSH wanted to get at is our own internal dialogues. Of course, as you point out, if the internal dialogue is "I won't do this because God told me not to", then it's hard to divorce the two.

A generally accepted division between the two is that morality is a system of what is right and wrong in some kind of objective sense, and ethics is a system of what is permissible and impermissible in a much more subjective way.

The two can be at odds. Examples:

A lawyer having a sexual relationship with a client, or a teacher with a student. Not immoral, but probably unethical. (This is assuming the student is of legal age).

A soldier killing people in a war to save his homeland. Legal and ethical, but possibly immoral if you have the uncompromising stance on the taking of human life.

[Fenrir]

Which is exactly my point.

I'm sorry, but, are you playing with me? You said that medicines have a 100% success rate.

Because morality is an external factor...

What external factor? From where?

A generally accepted division between the two is that morality is a system of what is right and wrong in some kind of objective sense...

What makes you think that right and wrong are objective? Can you demonstrate that it is?

^ That sounds more rude and snarky than I intend, but I can not think of a different way of putting it.

A soldier killing people in a war to save his homeland. Legal and ethical, but possibly immoral if you have the uncompromising stance on the taking of human life.

Would not my own uncompromising stance come from within, and, therefore, by your definition, an ethical matter?

[Dsarker]

Which is exactly my point.

I'm sorry, but, are you playing with me? You said that medicines have a 100% success rate.

Was a sarcastic statement on my part.