If I were to shoot your wife, would you have a problem with that?
-michael martin
The Church of the FSM is always looking for content. Details here
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase from
Amazon.com
Purchase from BN.com
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
Add these buttons to your site:
Bobby's Blog
Contact Bobby: Contact Me
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
I’ve never read the good book and it’s not on my reading list. I’ve never read 99% of nic’s posts either as all I can see is long long preaching. I take my view of christian “moralty” based their actions and social engineering, that I have witnessed througout my life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You know I can’t seem to find the recipe, supposedly written by Darwin, for growing babies in pond water. Does anyone know where I can find it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Swabbies Bucket Nov 30th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
“Good thing I brought the bucket geez!”
.
Swabbies, I only glimpsed the reference in one of nic’s earliest posts, but I believe you need two buckets?
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hmmm… I seem to have missed some ripper arguments during my rather extensive down time :(
.
Still, kudos to Penne, gill and that rather wenchy character for fighting back those benighted heathens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, and referring to the titular comment; I just saw a great little show. It was one of those “police videos exposed” specials, where they have all the idiot car chases, and drug busts.
.
The reason I bring it up though, was it had a segment on a woman who tried to hire a contract killer to take out her husband. Needless to say, she made a rather big mistake when she called a party supply shop to do this, and the shopowner played along, reported her to the police, and she was caught.
.
Here’s the cincher though…
.
Why did she want to kill her husband?
.
The answer; She was unhappily married, but because she was a “big person” in the local church, she would not go through with a divorce.
.
Religion; The reason rednecks kill their spouses!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Crap I see I do! I’ll break out my special bucket for now!
Wow! Kudos to the Deuteronominist! Good stuff ye gots there!
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
13,
.
You asked for an interpretation and I gave it. Did I misunderstand you? Do you already have an interpretation and were performing some sort of test? I interpret (correctly I believe) that the pasta was symbolic of humanity. In a proper FSM world view (can there be any other sort?) we are all the stuff of pasta. ;-)
.
OEJ, Ship’s Navigator
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OEJ, Ship’s Navigator and Pastafarian theologian!
RAmen OEJ
.
Jingles good to see you back. It’s bloody hard work sometimes, without all you guys around.
RAmen to you
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic is back!
.
Welcome back, Nic. Glad to see you again, but I’m surprised to see you rehashing the morality discussion. I thought we settled that one.
.
Let’s ge to the heart of this. Before and now, you claim that morality comes from the Bible. This is an unsupportable position. If you accept that moralitly comes from the Bible, then you must accept the authority of the Bible on moral matters. Accepting the Bible on matters of morality requires all the old testament punishments like keeping slaves (a practice Jesus also endorses). Any civilized person today will reject these as immoral.
.
So, if the Bible is the source of all morality, where does the standard come from that allows a modern Christian to reject this and other Biblical standards as immoral? Nothing in the Bible allows us to reject them. Obviously, there exists a moral standard outside of scripture that we apply to moderate biblical morality.
.
Surveys and studies have shown repeatedly that people from all backgrounds (religious and non-religious) make very similar choices when given moral dilemmas. For example, in the classic pedestrian on a railroad dilemmas, subjects will overwhelmingly agree that it is wrong to push a person onto the tracks to save five others, but is acceptable to switch the track to kill one and save five. Nowhere in the Bible do you find passages to explain this distinction.
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Correction; replace “punishments” with “practice”. Pardon my sloppy editing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1 id jack: nonononono but u said that the meatballs ate me when they didn’t. I now realize that you were using a complex metaphor involving the me symbolizing humanity and therefore pasta. My mistake! His noodly appendage must have mistakenly tightened it’s grip on my brain too hard for a moment.
Hail to the Perpetrator of Intelligent Falling!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gill you wrote, “Not the way I see it. A judge looks at the situation and judges accordingly—50 years for a crime, let’s say. Because the crime was equal to 50 years in jail. He DOES NOT stick a person in jail for all eternity because of one crime, nor does he send people away for all eternity because they don’t agree with him and whatever his views are personally.” – The problem is that you are viewing everything through a rather simplistic lens. This is not your fault. It’s the lens that the Judeo-Christian world has given you. Let me give you a good example: The usual Judeo-Christian understanding of God and His ways is like Newtonian physics. It’s very simple and easy to comprehend. However, it’s really more like quantum physics. I do not mean that God is arbitrary or some sort of random swerve, but rather that He and His ways are extremely complicated. So here is an answer to your statement: First, God fashioned you for eternity, leave your traditional view of God behind for a second…Isn’t it possible that He cannot undo His work? Second, in Exodus 21:23-25 God sets forth the famous and often poorly interpreted “eye for eye” principle. This basically shows us that God is just.
Lastly, in Matthew 11:24 Jesus says, “But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the Day of Judgment than for you.” This indicates that the experience in hell is relative.
/
Penne
I am sorry that the point of my argument has eluded you. You wrote, “People cannot ‘go around murdering’ because we have laws against that.” – Who made those laws? What gives them the right? You said that murderers are “sick” and that they “need to be put away”. Can you substantiate that claim? That is, starting from a purely naturalistic framework, what gives anyone the right to judge the behavior of another human? You are telling me your feelings. What if a murderer tells me that he feels like your feelings are sick? What’s the difference?
/
peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ nic, Oh you asked me to support my morals statement, try this, it is ingrained into the human genome via evolutionary biology, and not divinely inspired. It is generally taboo to steal, murder, cheat, assault babies, be adulterous, and perform lewd acts on llamas because such actions are not advantageous for the well being of the the local group. Over time, via natural selection, this trait has been incorporated into the human DNA code, a sort of powerful genetic memory governing societal behavior.
I won’t welcome you back, ’cause I wish you never came here to begin with. Just to pick a fight, how sad! And you use your God as your sword.
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hail Pastafarians! His Noodleness has planted another thought in my head.
It is difficuly to describe its incredible holyness in words, but I will do my best.
Here is the Thought.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There it is. Only you must imagine it much MORE so, and with extra squiggles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ 13 WOW! Thats pretty deep it is!
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
BTW I know why people don’t kill each other. It is because evolution designed the human brain, and as we evolved it was in our genes’ beniffit to look after our young. The genes for that passed on. As we grew into higher primates we banded together. Those tribes who best looked after their groups wellfair survived. Those who didn’t didn’t. So maternal/paternal care was extended to the tribe. Unfortunately it did not go much furthur when we became human, because to this day people kill people that they do not feel close too, particularly if those people live in a different area. That is it. Plain, if not simple. No complex notions of God or morality need to be involved. I’m not insulting those who believe in God, and I see nothing wrong in believing that it was he who did this, but if you are faith based, then stick to faith and don’t argue the point with us or tote them as fact or even plausible theory to our children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry, I forgot to add a “witty” ending.
May His Noodleness forget all that blasphemy I uttered and know that I only beleive in Him and His creations!
There we go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Did I ever tell you folks about the time I picked 37 bushels of grapes in 4 hrs?
Dang I was tired! And purple too!
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
sombodys bitter…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The caveman stands under the tree. A coconut falls unto his head. He assumes the coconut fell because it was ripe, and settled down to eat it. Little did he know that he was the nect victim of the evil fruit dropping murdurer. A watermelon fell on his head. He died.
Some days later, a beautiful cave woman peicefully sits under a different tree. She has not heard what happened to the caveman. A coconut falls on her head. She feels that someone drops it, runs away, and is saved.
Thus through generations and generations of natural selection, those who subscribed to the conspiracy theory that someone caused the chaotic events in their lives survived, while those who did not did not. Eventually they began beleiving that Someone (note caps on S) was truely behind EVERYTHING. Some tribes called the being Shiva, some El, some Yaweh, some Allah. They weren’t too far off in their beleifs. They only got the name and some minor points of litergy wrong. The Being behind the world was, and is, the Flying Spaghetti monster.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
lol that should be in the Gospel
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
im not bitter! im just excitable! I hope you weren’t talking about me. I would hate to be called bitter when im only 16! (watch all my credibility go down the drain for admitting my age…you old people are so narrow minded!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
oops sorry my credibility was lost long ago, because SOME of you arent pure enough to understand the admittedly strange thoughts the FSM plants in my head!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yes i would have a problem with that. If you were to slay my hypothetical wife, i would call upon all my righteous fury to beat the living noodle out of you. After that i would probably buy you a few drinks. Then i’d tear said beverages from your hands and give you a stern talking to (read:deafening yelling-at). Then i’d give you back your drinks to put your life imprisonment to the back of your head for a while. Then i’d mourn my late wife. I’d pray for her soul and a bit too for yours. Maybe just enough that you get a toothbrush with which to scrub the pots of the noodle kitchen you are assigned to serve under in the afterlife, as apposed to the others who must do so with strands of their own hair. By pulling out thier own hair (noodles) they would learn that only suffering can come from rejecting a good bowl of
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ 13 ROTFLMAO!
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I heard Ramen noodles taste bad. Never tried em tho.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One Eyed Jack,
Thanks for the warm welcome. Most of the Spaghetti people are really angry and rude. Thanks for being different.
/
I am not trying to argue for where the absolute moral standard should come from. I am simply asking, “Does it exist?” Is it real or just a human invention (Saying it evolved does not mean that it is real or timeless. We could also evolve a newer higher standard, which states that all standards are trash. But can any one in here perceive a day when they could say, “I think it’s a good idea to kill INNOCENT children and elderly people?”)? If it does exist, how do we account for it? I am not making any suggestion as to where it comes from. I actually do not believe it comes from the Bible. I believe the person, character, and nature of God determines the moral standard. In no commandment is there any moral authority to establish WHY something is right or wrong. A commandment is a mere statement that something is right or wrong. The Bible is merely a statement or a representation of God’s person, character, and nature. It’s a statement in human terms and is often poorly interpreted.
/
I am rehashing the moral argument because I thought that it was the topic in this room.
/
Swabbies Bucket,
I did not come in here to pick a fight. I came because once upon a time I found some stimulating and interesting “debate” and conversation on this site.
/
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
BIG POST CHAPPIES.
.
Ahhh, nic. You ask Penne what gives the right to judge anyone?
.
The answer is the society itself does. I will get to that shortly, but first, let us consider how our morality came about, from an evolutionary viewpoint.
.
The purpose of morality in any society is purely one of evolutionary convienience.
.
In a close-knit society, say a small tribe, village or troop, and especially one living one meal away from starvation, morality is essential. It prevents the society from killing itself, allows the members to work together without fearing for possessions or loved ones.
.
Should there be a transgression to those rules, it would damage the tribe. Whether this damage was something intangible, eg loss of trust between members because of a theft, or something tangible, like the rape and murder of another tribe member, it will affect how the tribe performs.
.
As a result, if this societal law is broken, the tribe will punish them. This can range from the silent treatment for a while, to the ritualised spearing practiced by the aboriginal tribes of Australia. The tribe will either bring the offender back into line, or dispose of them.
.
The existance of morality would be a necessary addition to any small group, to prevent that group self destructing. If no morality exists, the group would engage in internecine conflict, squabbling away what little resources they have. These morally devoid societies would in turn be weaker than one with a careful code.
It can thus be argued that morality is evolutionarily feasible.
.
Now, let us look at modern day society. We no longer live in small tribes (or at least, WE of the broadband internet connections, computers, and spaghetti deities). We live in huge cities. Now, the simple tribal morality ceases to work.
.
The entire society cannot come out to punish offenders, because there are far too many people. The offender is harder to catch, and thus reasonable doubt becomes an issue. In a small society, it is a lot harder to hide a crime than in a multi-million pop. city.
.
So, something has to be done to prevent the crime, but we can no longer rely on simple group consensus. Hence, we (the society) allow representatives to do the job.
.
These representatives are screened for suitability, to prevent murderers and the like to make the rulings.
.
They are forced to undergo extensive training, to ensure an informed decision.
.
Laws are explicitly outlined, to enable multiple judges to make similar rulings.
.
Guidelines are put in place to ensure that these representatives obey their own rulings.
.
Police are hired to enforce the laws, and to give the judges weighting.
.
The laws are determined by societal consent. In a democracy, if a law is determined sufficiently unjust by a significant percentage of society, it is changed. If the society stays silent, then by that sociey’s morality, the rule suffices.
.
The democracy grants the judges their power, by allowing their existence. It is as simple as that.
.
.
.
.
.
On a completely different note, poms are now 2 for 45 in the first day of the second test. Go Aussies!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
haha glad to brighten your day swabbies. Bye for today I have to do homework and im not getting anything done because im laughing at both side’s petty malformed arguments, and admiring my own brilliantly crafted essays on a subject which I know nothing about, save that I got an A- in it. I promise myself I will close this window and work. CLOSE IT…oh great noodle release me! ok…im closing the window….not checking for more comments…no! stop! arrrrg! ok ill check once but I promise I will write nothing more today! Over and out! YArrrrrg! Praise to buttered noodles and parmesian!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
aaah just one more comment to Nic. And srry nic but I cant answer your rebuttle until this weekend. Your last post seems logical enough, that the bible is an embodyment of human morals and creativity. But your other posts seem to involve flawed logic, saying that the onyl reason ID isnt science is that science only includes natural phenomenon, and that it shouldn’t. But Science is purely about the cold hard world. Well your last comments aside, I do disagree with one point. Throughout history, humankind has decided that it is a god idea to kill innocents. A too often pointed to example among nonchristians are the Crusades. One might argue that for the Crusaders, the enemy was evil. But there are other cases. For example, the Holocaust. Hitler knew full and well that the jews were innocent, and was persecuting them because of their heritage alone. Not religous beleifs, but for being genetically jewish (note the persecution of Christians with Jewish grandparents). This arrises because along with the morals that keep the tribe, nation, whatever, together, their is a competing set of traits that cause a wish to kill those unlike the self. People with the Killing traits killed people without it. Forgive me for seeming racist and I will say right now that I am Asian and may have a bias, but I have noticed that in general the anglo saxon population is more ambitious and aggressive than others. Perhaps it is cultural, but it illustrates that those who have the trait, be it genetic or cultural, outcompete those without. And the Anglos do control a disproportionate amount of resources in the world. The point is, morality is mainly a product of getting enough resources to propigate ones genes, be they moral or immoral.
The wish for justice and fairness arrises for
different reasons, which I have not read about anywhere but i’m sure exist, and I could give some theories had I more time. At times, innocence has nothing to do with who is killed and who isn’t. Guilt is in the eye of the beholder, and is often an exuse.
*insert witty comment here*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ 13 Hit the books 13, you mean well, your stating your age meant nothing to me. But your last post spoke volumes for your overall lack of knowledge, theres hope for you. But must learn!
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just for nic! Here nic… enjoy you sorry little person that can’t stand behind their own words or answer questions about the book you know so well, because “that would take to much time” “even for you”, your words not mine. So here enjoy…..
.
I’d like to build the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow-white turtle doves
.
I’d like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I’d like to hold it in my arms
And keep it company
(That’s the song I hear)
I’d like to see the world for once
(Let the world sing today)
All standing hand in hand
And hear them echo through the hills
For peace throughout the land
That’s the song I hear
(That’s the song I hear)
Let the world sing today
(Let the whole wide world keep singing)
A song of peace that echoes on
And never goes away
.
Put your hand in my hand
Let’s begin today
Put your hand in my hand
Help me find a way
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
what do u disagree w/ Swabbie? wait no don’t answer that. I am studying. STUDYING!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
S T U D Y I NG
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I mean, even if you don’t agree with my questionable examples which were mosty conjecture, you must agree that people have a tendancy to feel animosity to those unlike themselves? And this for the reason of claiming more resources for themselves instead of spilling over in generousity for others.
BTW 16 year olds hate to be told that they aren’t super smart.
Did I mention that I was studying?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic,
.
It appears I misunderstood your position. My apology.
.
I do not believe there is such a thing as an absolute moral source. I believe that our humanistic standard of morality comes by evolution. To put it simply, early man lived in small groups and members of the group which acted in a way that benefited the group would remain members long enough to pass on their genes. Those who acted in ways that harmed the group would be killed or exiled. Over time, the group would be comprised primarily of individuals with a common attitude towards what is moral. A similar dynamic can be found in most animals that live in groups.
.
So, what we consider as moral is a consequence of evolution. As such, it cannot be an absolute. It evolved with us and will continue to evolve.
.
The group dynamics that dominated early man’s world no longer apply. We live in a much larger society now which is simultaneously more connected and more isolated than early man’s. I can’t imagine where that will lead us, but if we survive, I feel assured that at least some of what we consider moral and immoral today will be different 100, 1,000, and 100,000 years from now.
.
To say that God has given us an internal moral compass (is this what you are saying?) would imply that what is moral never changes.
.
Time to go now. I’ll try to follow up tomorrow.
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@13,
I could interpret your dream because I myself have ultra-vivid dreams, and sometimes lucid dream. Oh, and I’m also 16, and I still am creditable.
I agree with Swabbies Bucket. You mean well, you’re smart, and can present good info, but are not to, well informed. Visit Wikipedia, it does wonders.
.
@nic,
In your opinion, is stem cell research moral? I think so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I read a journal artical recently on a study relating to this. 1 year old infants were shown pictures of different people, while their brain activity was monitered. From facial expressions and from seeing which parts of the brain each face triggered, it was gathered that the infants preffered the faces that looked most like their own. Adults were similerly tested, and their tastes seemed to mirror the infants, except that they would often lean toward certain groups that their culture had thought them to think of favorably.
Alright now I am going to physically unplug the computer. You won’t here from me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wench Nikkiee and Jingles– *blush* I just do it ‘cause I’m bored.
Nic—“The problem is that you are viewing everything through a rather simplistic lens.†Well, I have yet to insult you, but if you’re gonna insult me….honestly, do you really think I’m just ‘seeing things’ wrong here? Because somehow I don’t think that’s the case.
—
“Isn’t it possible that He cannot undo His work?â€â€”Not if he’s the god you believe in, who can do anything he damn well pleases. (You never answered my questions on god’s ability to do any and everything, by the way….you do HAVE an answer, right?) Also, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that I’m looking through the lens the Judeo-Christian world has given me….by your *own* standards, would that not be the ‘only correct way’ to view things? (Personally, I think I’m looking through the lens of a teenager who’s busily fretting about her collage apps and trying to stay awake in chem.)
-
“What if a murderer tells me that he feels like your feelings are sick? What’s the difference?â€â€”The difference is that society cannot survive if murderers are allowed to go around murdering at will. Humans have that pesky will to survive, after all.
–
My first post to you had a whole bunch of questions you neglected to answer, by the way…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
gah! u guys are driving me crazy. I looked up every fact I mentioned on Wikipedia and the only mistake I found was my spelling. People were persecuted for Jewish decent. A-S Europeand (which btw does not include Russia) and America have the best standereds of living for its population. Innocents died in the Crusades. Everything else mentioned was plainly stated as observatio, opinion, or conjecture. Please tell me what I said that was wrong, I really can’t stand not knowing stuff.
~I’m almost done with my homework don’t give me those telepathic accusing thoughts.~
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ 13 /Your last post seems logical enough, that the bible is an embodyment of human morals and creativity. /
.
Here friend, work on this one a little. I’m getting pretty drunk here, damn grape beer.
But I’ll try to hang out and wait for your answer, if not I’ll post again tomorrow?
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Trix and 13, you both seem more lucid and self-assured than I was at 16. Bravo!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Im done with homework. You see Swabbies, what that means is that humans created the bible and put in the feelings and impulses they have. I don’t mean that the bible is good or right or even deserving of special consideration, but it does represent the morality and world view of the writers. “Christian” phylosophy, bible based or not, does represent Christian morals and world views. Swabbies its not fair to say im misinformed because I made a concession that the bible isn’t some kind of evil “satanic” text. Just like any literature it embodies human thoughts, which is what nic was trying to say. Of course this statement is completely contradicting his other posts, but I don’t agree with the other ones.
“Thou shalt not kill steal” etc is a representation of human beleifs, as is “thou shalt stone a man to death or hang him for herasy” or “Thou shalt kill a gay person” or whatever else is in the text. If I were to write a story, or follow an atheistic phylisophy and write a book about it, it would have the same status as the bible. That is all I had meant to say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
- nic- LAWS=Rules of conduct of any organized society, however simple or small, that are enforced by threat of punishment if they are violated. Modern law has a wide sweep and regulates many branches of conduct.- In other words, as peoples minds and lives became more complacated, so did our laws. Examples of early law systems are to be found in the code of Hammurabi (Babylonia, very civilized bunch-heathans to you), the Laws of Manu (India-more heathans), and the Mosaic code (Palestine-ouch,that’s gotta hurt). These codes show the universal tendency of ethical systems of society to produce a legal order to enforce its ethical and social mandates. In classical antiquity the first codes of law are those attributed to Solon and to Lycurgus.-In short, laws(based in morality) have been around much longer then the Christians and Jewish god.-People make laws.-Laws are traditionaly made and enforced by the leader of a group or community.-Leaders of a group or community are traditionaly picked by a majority because they are the stronger, wiser, or older. These people have the the right to make laws because we ,as a group,give it to them, just as most animal groups have alpha males or alpha females, so has every group, tribe, or clan ever to exist upon the earth. As for murderers being sick; that is for their doctors and the courts to judge,-as they have been given that right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
266 for 3, you can’t have the ashes back!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Take my wife, please!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
On top of that, they tell you thay you’re supposed to eat his flesh
Pontius Pilate: Are you a king?
Jesus Christ: Eat me!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jingles,
You wrote, “It can thus be argued that morality is evolutionarily feasible.” – You created a scenario in which morals could have evolved. Is it not possible that someone could create a scenario in which the world was over populated, the natural resources were rapidly depleting, etc., and that in this scenario it is moral to rid ourselves of the weak, and insufficient contributors? Here is the point: Is it possible that someday it would be moral to kill innocent people, or is that always evil? If it is always, in all times and scenarios, wrong to kill people then that is an absolute. If there is an absolute, where did it come from? How is inherent in a system of matter & energy + time & chance?
/
You also wrote, “The laws are determined by societal consent. In a democracy, if a law is determined sufficiently unjust by a significant percentage of society, it is changed. If the society stays silent, then by that society’s morality, the rule suffices.” So are arguing that morals are relative? Again can there be a scenario, in which it is moral to kill absolutely INNOCCENT people?
/
One Eyed Jack,
You wrote, “To say that God has given us an internal moral compass (is this what you are saying?) would imply that what is moral never changes.” – I do believe that God has given us a moral compass (i.e. a conscience). HOWEVER, that is not my point here at all. I am simply asking do morals change? Or is something like murdering INNOCCENT people always wrong? If it is always wrong, how do we account for the inherent nature of this truth naturalistically?
/
Gill,
I did not mean to insult. If was intending to insult any one or anything thing it was the typical Christian simplicity (It’s not just Christians though, humans in general want simple answers. Unfortunately, they are extremely rare.). Oddly enough, I feel like I know you a little after all of our conversations. I have great respect for you. Please forgive me.
/
You wrote, “You never answered my questions on god’s ability to do any and everything, by the way….you do HAVE an answer, right?” – God can do all things that are intrinsically possible, not that which is intrinsically impossible. That is a huge concept. I made a huge post on the “I Wouldn’t Want To Be You…” page. The post was on Oct 16th, 2006 at 4:57 pm.
/
Penne,
Thanks for the history lesson. You obviously missed the point again. I don’t care if the Christians were the first to make a law code. That does not have anything to do with this discussion. Maybe my above comments to Jingles and One Eyed Jack will help you see the real issue I’m raising.
/
Swabbies Bucket,
You posted like 50 verses. Do you want me to write a commentary on each one? I gave you an open invitation to ask an individual question or ten for that matter. I have already given you a very general and yet sufficient answer. If you want to choose a specific verse I will try to authenticate and defend God’s goodness in that particular instance.
/
TRIX.
Honestly, I am not very informed on the issue of stem cell research. However, with the information I have I will give you an answer. I can only see one potential problem with stem cell research. If it becomes a positive alternative to childbirth I think it is immoral. That is, if a pregnant woman visits her Dr. and is told that an abortion could be beneficial to society, I think it is wrong. Again, I am basically ignorant on this particular topic.
/
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
nic– no bigge. In terms of your question, I’ll say only this: I think morals CAN and DO change over time…for thousands of years, keeping slaves was both fine and seen as a way to calculate social status (ie. the more you have the richer you are the higher you ranked in society). Nowadays, we see slavery as completlely IMmoral and wrong on any level you can think of. Maybe in a hundred years something will happen and our views will swap again. (Though I would not want to be alive to see it.)
-
If you think about it, morals CAN’T be absolute. I may think that gay marriage/being homosexual is your buissness and perfectly ok, and someone else might think that, for whatever reason, it’s immoral and wrong. Muslim fanatics obviously think it’s ok to murder innocent people for their god (9/11 comes to mind); I can’t see how anyone could even CONSIDER something like that. Whether I’m right or wrong, point is that what’s moral and what’s not is defined by your society and the rules that keep it fuctioning. And, as you mentioned, hopefully your conscience would play some role.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gill,
Are you an agnostic, atheist, or theist?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0