What's morality?..
Or, what is the moral thing to do?
How do we know it's moral?
>>1150554
not being a fucking nazi thats for sure
>What's morality?..
Not being a dick.
>>1150554
>What's morality?
It isn't.
We live in a finite world.
We sew and we reap.
If we reap more than we sew, we're being what words define as 'greedy', but what I think is more properly repented, wordlessly, as a sensed 'evil'.
If we were good, we would reap as much, or less than, what we sew.
Morality is a matter of relativity.
I suppose the counter argument is "the world doesn't matter", or "I do not matter". I would say these views are unintelligent and unsubstantial.
Views as such are only available to animals who speak in words - no other animal vocalizes this opinion; and more to the point, they are pointless views.
I suppose it's possible to victor or stalemate an argument on the "I don't matter" route, but what victory comes from it other than a feeling of being correct or a temporary boost in one's ego? You do matter, and the Earth does matter, for you eat, drink and continue to survive. Therefore, beyond your words, you do think you matter, but you say different. Confused? So am I. This is the grand effect of words.
>what is morality
Sociological imperative evolved over time to allow human societies to function in large groups without cannibalizing each other metaphorically and literally.
>What's morality?..
Lies we tell dumb people so they don't make society unpleasant.
>>1150631
>>1150633
Yeah yeah.
You don't know a thing about life!
Mr. Anonymous
"I got a box we can put all your lies in...
Until the end of days..."
Morality is what we define it to be.
Some clowns define morality as "whatever my sky daddy does", some go for the actually practical approach of defining as it is useful in the world, i.e. "furthering human happiness".
>>1150638
You don't sound intelligent or meaningful in the slightest. I wouldn't be surprised if English is your second language because very little of what you say is actually understandable.
They think the argument is whether or not morality exists, when we're discussing what 'morality', is...
Oooh ooh! Ah ahhh ahhhh!
>>1150647
Yeah yeah.
>>1150560
My name is ironic.. Ugh..
But while we're on the subject, why is nazism immoral? (Don't worry, I know nazism is immoral).
But hypothetically speaking, if you were to look at it objectively, why is nazism immoral?
>>1150840
Same reason 4chan is immoral. Retards like you have access to it.
>>1150840
Because it is and was by its very definition theocratic. It is enamoured by the idea of a pure Aryan race and other pagan blood myths and it was formed and made up of the Catholic right wing.
Read Mein Kampf for Christ sake. The first chapter is a justification of the mass slaughter of Jews by Hitler on the grounds that he is doing Gods work, and executing Gods will.
Morality is individually specific. A person has morals that provides boundaries for what they do, society has ethics that are warning signs of people who deviate from the norm. Both have their uses, but are incredibly subjective and context-heavy.
>What's morality?
Rules and habits that help us survive. They're slowly developed over millions of years, and them working is usually more important than having a proper understanding of them
>>1150840
Back to pol tripfaggot
>>1150629
>I am a moral relativist
>let me wank over the sound of my own voice
I will address your points like you 'addressed' the points of competing positions:
I would say your views are unintelligent and unsubstantial.
>>1151587
Following instructions from a book isn't being moral - at best, it's being obedient.
Interpreting a book full of that many contradictions, on the other hand, is at least an intellectual act and the choosing of which bits to keep and throw out could be acted upon morally, but as most folks just take other people's word for what the book means, we're back to simple obedience.
Morality requires understanding of the reasons behind one's actions, as well as the action itself. If it isn't an act of reason, it isn't an act of morality.
>>1151587
ΚΥΡΙΕ ΕΛΕΙΣΟΝ
>>1151557
>it was formed and made up of the Catholic right wing.
You know that's bullshit.
>>1151587
I'm sure we can all take profound moral guidance from it, like the sanctity of marriage!!!!
When Rachel saw that she was not bearing Jacob any children, she became jealous of her sister. So she said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I’ll die!”
2 Jacob became angry with her and said, “Am I in the place of God, who has kept you from having children?”
3 Then she said, “Here is Bilhah, my servant. Sleep with her so that she can bear children for me and I too can build a family through her.”
4 So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife. Jacob slept with her, 5 and she became pregnant and bore him a son. 6 Then Rachel said, “God has vindicated me; he has listened to my plea and given me a son.” Because of this she named him Dan.[a]
7 Rachel’s servant Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second son. 8 Then Rachel said, “I have had a great struggle with my sister, and I have won.” So she named him Naphtali.[b]
9 When Leah saw that she had stopped having children, she took her servant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife. 10 Leah’s servant Zilpah bore Jacob a son. 11 Then Leah said, “What good fortune!”[c] So she named him Gad.[d]
12 Leah’s servant Zilpah bore Jacob a second son. 13 Then Leah said, “How happy I am! The women will call me happy.” So she named him Asher.[e]
14 During wheat harvest, Reuben went out into the fields and found some mandrake plants, which he brought to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, “Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.”
>>1151685
15 But she said to her, “Wasn’t it enough that you took away my husband? Will you take my son’s mandrakes too?”
“Very well,” Rachel said, “he can sleep with you tonight in return for your son’s mandrakes.”
16 So when Jacob came in from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet him. “You must sleep with me,” she said. “I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes.” So he slept with her that night.
17 God listened to Leah, and she became pregnant and bore Jacob a fifth son. 18 Then Leah said, “God has rewarded me for giving my servant to my husband.” So she named him Issachar.[f]
19 Leah conceived again and bore Jacob a sixth son. 20 Then Leah said, “God has presented me with a precious gift. This time my husband will treat me with honor, because I have borne him six sons.” So she named him Zebulun.[g]
21 Some time later she gave birth to a daughter and named her Dinah.
22 Then God remembered Rachel; he listened to her and enabled her to conceive. 23 She became pregnant and gave birth to a son and said, “God has taken away my disgrace.” 24 She named him Joseph,[h] and said, “May the Lord add to me another son.”
>>1151686
It's a set of contradictory instructions open to interpretation... and one of many, many books, or no one would know how to read, and its existence would be rather moot.
>>1151590
Sophism.
I hope demonstrate your points and KYS.
/thread
>>1151840
There's hundreds. >>1151619
>>1151894
I just linked you an image with hundreds. Pick one.
>>1151936
Confirmed for never even having read a bible.
>>1150554
>What's morality?
Whatever the fuck you want it to be
>Or, what is the moral thing to do?
What you decide is moral according to your own code
>How do we know it's moral?
Because it fits in with your morals
>>1150560
Hitler did nothing wrong
Survival is the only moral. Every choice that keeps you and your children from dying is right. It also applies if you want to be eternal in history.
>>1151956
All bibles have contradictions dearie, you would know if you had read one.
>>1151986
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf
>>1151991
>many books have been written making ludicrous excuses and playing ridiculous mental gymnastics about the contradictions in the bible
There I've fixed that for you lad.
>>1151989
This is really some silly shit dude.
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night,
on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the
sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5
God is light. God put light into the sun that bounces off the moon. God does not need an outside source of light.
I'm just not going to waste my time on all 700 of these idiotic misunderstandings. If you have a favorite, pick it.
I'll show you it's wrong too.
>>1151992
There's different translations, yes. They all have inconsistencies because the source texts have inconsistencies.
>>1151685
It happened. The bible recorded it happening. The bible did not say "go thou and do likewise".
>>1151998
Second one is just as insipid as the first one.
God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day)
working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls
heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters.
This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our
space program. 1:6-8
The canopy of water fell during the Flood. So no, it did not "interfere with our space program".
My God, these were written for idiots.
>>1151998
Lame. You can start with a proper explanation for that one and then we can move on to others.
>>1152009
At least the idiot is consistent in not understanding that God is light:
Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their
photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11
God is light.
>>1152009
hahahahahahahahahahah
>>1152005
Except the several hundred inconsistencies that have already been posted by two different anons with two different sources.
Struggling to follow the thread?
>>1152011
God dwells in unapproachable light.
1 Timothy 6:16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.
God put light into the sun; the sun does not create itself to have its own light:
Psalm 74:16 The day is Yours, the night also is Yours; You have prepared the light and the sun.
>>1152025
They're all from idiots intentionally trying to read the bible in the worst way possible.
1 John 1:5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.
>>1151557
Okay, then why is mass slaughter of jews immoral?
>>1150875
Okay, why is 4chan immoral?
>>1151587
Why is the bible moral?
>>1151686
Technically, it's THE 66 books.
>>1150640
I can almost be morally relativistic, if it weren't for the fact that it's perpetually degenerative. For example, one culture's pedophile might be another culture's saint. If there were to be an objectively immoral culture, then there must be a standard of morality. If there is no standard, then there's a possibility that murder isn't immoral. But every culture in the world knows that murder is immoral, so therefore morality isn't completely baseless or relativistic, but it's also not completely objective. My take on it, is that it's like body language; everyone has the same body language initially; people cover their groin in respect or submission; people put their head down when sad or shameful; we additionally have body language perpetuated by our culture, such as thumbs up, the middle finger, etc. Morality seems to be representative of human need and communication, just like body language is, because they're pretty much the same. Those are just my opinions.
>>1152011
Revelation 21:23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.
>B-but God needs the sun as a light source
>>1152040
People are morally relativistic until something bad happens to them. Then they're suddenly absolute moralists.
>>1152012
"He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making
the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a
hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions
of stars. 1:16
Yes, God effortlessly made trillions of stars, each unique, named each, and stretched out the heavens with His hands.
And you fools want to make Him your enemy? And you're the "rational" ones?
>>1152052
"And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth." Really? Then why are only a tiny fraction of stars visible from
earth? Under the best conditions, no more than five thousand stars are
visible from earth with the unaided eye, yet there are hundreds of
billions of stars in our galaxy and a hundred billion or so galaxies.
Yet this verse says that God put the stars in the firmament "to give
light" to the earth. 1:17
Yes, the heavens do declare the glory of God, and demonstrate His power.
How is this a "contradiction" to anything?
These are just embarrassing.
Kek. The Christians are so embarrassed they are deleting their posts.
>>1152066
>>>1151587
>Why is the bible moral?
>>>1151686
>Technically, it's THE 66 books.
You lie. These were not responding to Christian posts.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm
>>1152081
Slightly above retard level misunderstandings.
Jesus' genealogy is given through both His mother and father, and both go back to King David. Jesus has a right to the throne. But Jesus is not Joseph's biological son, so Jesus is not precluded from the throne by the curse on the descendants of Jeconiah. And Mary has no brothers, so she too stand to inherit the throne, and Jesus through her as well.
Joseph's genealogy is likely the product of a brother bringing up his dead brother's widow's son. As that is a common Hebrew practice, it is a far more likely explanation than "the bible contradicts itself", which it does not, being inspired by God Himself.
In the Greek you can tell that Luke's genealogy is through Mary as it includes definite articles before each person's name; the Joseph, the Heli, etc., as is customary for a woman's genealogy.
>>1152094
This idiot starts out by saying that the gospels are not all eyewitness accounts, and then explains that they were not all claimed to be eyewitness accounts. That John Mark wrote from Peter's recollections, and that Luke wrote an orderly account from all of the writings available.
Maybe you people do not know what a "contradiction" is.
A contradiction is something that is purported to be A and Not A at the same time, place and manner.
The gospels containing two eyewitness accounts, one eyewitness account as told to his friend's son, and one historian who put everything in order, contains no "contradictions" whatsoever.
>>1152135
Luke and Paul didn't know each other? kek
Colossians 4
Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you.
These are all garbage. Every single one of them.
>>1152044
Usually, people cling to moral absolutes just before societal collapse.
Going by this chart, for example:
1. Destruction of Political Infrastructure:
2. Destruction of Social Infrastructure:
3. Political Thesis:
4. Social Anti-thesis:
5. New social infrastructure
6. New Political Infrastructure
It happened during the French revolution when people decided on moral absolutes (The declaration of the rights of man). It happened during the American revolution (When British colonists became American liberals). It happened During the socialist revolution (When the Tsar was overthrown by the communists); even the fall of Rome could have been attributed to it as well. A society usually relies on the social institutions; family, military, education, politics, etc. If one of those bends, they all bend, and a revolution happens. The revolutions are quicker today, because modern values are more easily critiqued, because honor as been killed.
>>1152135
This guy really doesn't understand wtf he's talking about.
These are "contradictions"?
>Two completely different genealogies for Joseph.
For Jesus, actually, through Joseph the son of Heli, Mary's father, Joseph's father in law. They're different because one traces his mother back to David, and the other traces his step-father back to David.
Maybe the author's parent's family tree didn't branch. Maybe that's why he can't think properly.
>Luke places the date of Jesus' birth ten years later than Matthew.
It does not, actually. People have placed the second census as the one Luke is talking about based on the life of one man known by two different names. When you realize it's the same man, the census suddenly is placed around 7-6 BC, about the time of Jesus' birth.
>Matthew has Mary and Joseph living in a house in Bethlehem when Jesus was born while Luke says they were living in Nazareth and travelling to Bethlehem for a census.
Gee, those things are so hard to reconcile. They get to Bethlehem, there's no room, Jesus is born, the census is over, they move into a house. Such a tough one to figure out that they did not stay in a freakin' stable forever.
>Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth all along and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised.
Nonsense.
>Luke knows nothing of Herod's slaughter of the innocents or of a flight to Egypt. In fact, by Luke's chronology, Herod was already dead when Jesus was born.
Not by Luke's chronology; by the false chronology you place on Luke, you idiot.
Travel to Bethlehem.
Give birth to Jesus.
Check in at census.
Travel to Jerusalem and back for circumcision.
Live in Bethlehem.
Get house in Bethlehem.
Magi come to Herod, make problems.
Flee to Egypt.
Herod slaughters all 2 years old and under baby boys, giving you a sense of the time difference.
Herod dies.
Move back to Nazareth
>>1152163
As an engineer i'm pretty confused by your graph.
What the two axis represents?
What is the unit of mesure?
>>1152296
I think it's a timeline read from right to left.
>>1150554
Morals are social norms built up that allow humans to productively interact with one another. Societies without morals are weaker than those with morals.
>>1152040
>But every culture in the world knows that murder is immoral, so therefore morality isn't completely baseless or relativistic
Except certain cultures have had rather narrow or rather broad definitions of "murder".
Morality is whatever is good for the social collective. As what is and isn't good for the social collective changes over time, so must morality - otherwise it isn't moral.
It just so happens that murder and theft is generally bad for societies, so those tend to be universally held beliefs, even if the details get increasingly fuzzy and complicated, such as whether or not usury constitutes theft, or whether human sacrifice constitutes murder.
>>1152296
The vertical represents how socialized something is (or liberal, in contrast)
And the horizontal represents intersectionality (inclusiveness, pro-immigration, pro-diverse, basically leftwing), and intratotality (Exclusiveness, conservativeness, rightwing)
It shows that the right wing historically was more socially oriented, due to the monarchical and hierarchical oligarchies; think kings, queens, lords, serfs, noblemen, knighthood, etc; where the right wing was both the political and social infrastructure, it was met with critique, the critique started the American revolution (for example), and at that time, when politics and social infrastructure had been dissolved, a new one took its place (the political thesis), which is met with critique (the social antithesis), and eventually a new social infrastructure, and then a new political structure, a cycle.
>>1152399
Yes, broad definitions that cover various aspects of murder; but we all can agree that there's a base form of murder; literally only psychopaths would disagree that a murder close to home would cause general upset, which is, as my point suggests, that morals are inherently objective in the sense that they are sociologically predictable.
>Morality is whatever is good for the social collective.
Yes and no. Consider the scenario where a pedophile molests your son/daughter, and is sent to prison; assuming you are an average person, you would feel better knowing that pedophilia is generally considered "immoral" But let's say, for example, that mass sterilization of low iq people is inherently better for the collective, it could still be considered "immoral" if there's a general upset behind such legislation.
Morality can be inefficient for progress, and progress can be immoral to people. If someone wants to do something evil to progress society, they're going to have to live knowing that their decisions are morally inconsistent with society, therefore nothing they do evil is ever "for society".
>>1152040
>I can almost be morally relativistic,
I don't know if you understood what I was trying to say.
Morality is a word just like any other. It is completely arbitrarily defined, and the only reason there can be a perceived clash of moralities is because people's understanding of the word is not the same. That has nothing to do with moral relativism.
>>1153181
>Yes and no. Consider the scenario where a pedophile molests your son/daughter, and is sent to prison; assuming you are an average person, you would feel better knowing that pedophilia is generally considered "immoral" But let's say, for example, that mass sterilization of low iq people is inherently better for the collective, it could still be considered "immoral" if there's a general upset behind such legislation.
The emotional well being of the individual is part of the wellbeing of a society. If the society's emotional wellbeing is not coddled to a sufficient degree to meet its culture's needs, it will adapt until it does, or fall apart. This is similarly among the reasons we don't kill retards, leaving aside the more pragmatic fact that a lot of useful research comes about due to special needs individuals. See also the classic ST:TNG "The Masterpiece Society", which, in short, is summed in that necessity is the mother of invention. But again, on the individual scale, it tends to make people upset when you slaughter their retard kids, and there's, in the other direction, a limitation to how much suffering people are willing to take out of "necessity".
>morals are inherently objective in the sense that they are sociologically predictable
They are objective in that certain things are going to be detrimental to nearly every society. They are flexible, in that the degrees of harm and benefit will vary from society to society. A society can find itself in the predicament where large scale murders become desirable, just as the individual can get into a predicament where murder is his only viable option. Whether that means cannibalism, in your classic stranded survival tale, or mass murder, as with Aztecs who had salted all their farmland. There's, again, the balance between what the society can stomach, vs. the suffering they are willing to endure, but in the end, most societies, as most individuals, choose mere survival over being worthy of survival.
>>1153704
Also worth pointing out that a lot of codified morals (or laws) are about social identity, as cohesion is also important to a society's well being and sustainability. These cultural morays tend to vary from society to society more than anything, leading to the perception of "moral relativism", and occasionally outright conflict between societies with conflicting identity centric moral codes. (Such codes often being made specifically because they conflict with a competing society's cultural norms.)
>>1150560
youre underaged
