TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

---

Ok, it's generally not followed today, except in Muslim states. If the Jewish law is opposed by today's Christians and Jew's, then either god's morals changed or their morals have changed (excepting Islam). In Islamic states, beheading and lashing is still practiced as ordered in the Quran. Rabbinic law is not much different. All are immoral by my standards, but not by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god.

---

Stoning is not a moral law, it was a civil law of the ancient nation of Israel. Aside from the fact that that country no longer exists, those civil laws were set aside by the New Covenant.

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

---

Ok, it's generally not followed today, except in Muslim states. If the Jewish law is opposed by today's Christians and Jew's, then either god's morals changed or their morals have changed (excepting Islam). In Islamic states, beheading and lashing is still practiced as ordered in the Quran. Rabbinic law is not much different. All are immoral by my standards, but not by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god.

---

Stoning is not a moral law, it was a civil law of the ancient nation of Israel. Aside from the fact that that country no longer exists, those civil laws were set aside by the New Covenant.

---

Thanks that is what I have been trying to say.

And TS has obviously not read the Quran, if he thinks it says what he posted. I certainly have issues with Islam on certain philosophical grounds, but the cruelty we see in some Islamic states (e.g. Iran, Yemen) is different from the law in other Islamic countries (e.g. Indonesia, Bahrain) happens because that cruelty comes from the culture, not the religion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

---

Ok, it's generally not followed today, except in Muslim states. If the Jewish law is opposed by today's Christians and Jew's, then either god's morals changed or their morals have changed (excepting Islam). In Islamic states, beheading and lashing is still practiced as ordered in the Quran. Rabbinic law is not much different. All are immoral by my standards, but not by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god.

---

Stoning is not a moral law, it was a civil law of the ancient nation of Israel. Aside from the fact that that country no longer exists, those civil laws were set aside by the New Covenant.

---

Thanks that is what I have been trying to say.

And TS has obviously not read the Quran, if he thinks it says what he posted. I certainly have issues with Islam on certain philosophical grounds, but the cruelty we see in some Islamic states (e.g. Iran, Yemen) is different from the law in other Islamic countries (e.g. Indonesia, Bahrain) happens because that cruelty comes from the culture, not the religion.

---

Actually it's the degree of implementation of the religion. They still practice cruel tenants from Islam in both Bahrain and Indonesia, but the degree is restrained as a matter of secular law. I'm not defending TS or quash's positions on morality, I think they're terribly misguided, but Islamism applied in any degree has terrible social and individual consequences.

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

---

Ok, it's generally not followed today, except in Muslim states. If the Jewish law is opposed by today's Christians and Jew's, then either god's morals changed or their morals have changed (excepting Islam). In Islamic states, beheading and lashing is still practiced as ordered in the Quran. Rabbinic law is not much different. All are immoral by my standards, but not by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god.

---

Stoning is not a moral law, it was a civil law of the ancient nation of Israel. Aside from the fact that that country no longer exists, those civil laws were set aside by the New Covenant.

---

Thanks that is what I have been trying to say.

And TS has obviously not read the Quran, if he thinks it says what he posted. I certainly have issues with Islam on certain philosophical grounds, but the cruelty we see in some Islamic states (e.g. Iran, Yemen) is different from the law in other Islamic countries (e.g. Indonesia, Bahrain) happens because that cruelty comes from the culture, not the religion.

---

Actually it's the degree of implementation of the religion. They still practice cruel tenants from Islam in both Bahrain and Indonesia, but the degree is restrained as a matter of secular law. I'm not defending TS or quash's positions on morality, I think they're terribly misguided, but Islamism applied in any degree has terrible social and individual consequences.

---

But again, that comes from the culture rather then the faith. A lot of people don't ever wonder why, since Islam has more than a billion adherents, there is not a lot more of the violence we see from extremists. The reason is that while Islam does not separate political and religious authority, how that is applied depends on the culture.

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

---

Ok, it's generally not followed today, except in Muslim states. If the Jewish law is opposed by today's Christians and Jew's, then either god's morals changed or their morals have changed (excepting Islam). In Islamic states, beheading and lashing is still practiced as ordered in the Quran. Rabbinic law is not much different. All are immoral by my standards, but not by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god.

---

Stoning is not a moral law, it was a civil law of the ancient nation of Israel. Aside from the fact that that country no longer exists, those civil laws were set aside by the New Covenant.

---

Thanks that is what I have been trying to say.

And TS has obviously not read the Quran, if he thinks it says what he posted. I certainly have issues with Islam on certain philosophical grounds, but the cruelty we see in some Islamic states (e.g. Iran, Yemen) is different from the law in other Islamic countries (e.g. Indonesia, Bahrain) happens because that cruelty comes from the culture, not the religion.

---

Actually it's the degree of implementation of the religion. They still practice cruel tenants from Islam in both Bahrain and Indonesia, but the degree is restrained as a matter of secular law. I'm not defending TS or quash's positions on morality, I think they're terribly misguided, but Islamism applied in any degree has terrible social and individual consequences.

---

But again, that comes from the culture rather then the faith. A lot of people don't ever wonder why, since Islam has more than a billion adherents, there is not a lot more of the violence we see from extremists. The reason is that while Islam does not separate political and religious authority, how that is applied depends on the culture.

---

I think it comes from the change in the power structures. Christianity thankfully gave up true monarchy (power ordained by God) centuries ago. Islam has yet to go through that type of reformation, and even today's quasi Islamic democracies still are heavily influenced by the Qur'an's sayings on government structure and law. Therefore, as Islam defines these cultures, thus the government reflects it, and reinforces it via the state and its legal framework.

TexasScientist said:

---

If the Jewish law is opposed by today's Christians and Jews, then either god's morals changed or their morals have changed (excepting Islam).

---

This is a false dichotomy. God's moral law has never changed (adultery is always wrong), but the mode of punishment (i.e. stoning) as outlined in his civil law for the Hebrews can change without there being a change in God's moral law. The "morality" of the punishment itself (stoning), which is what you are addressing, is dependent on the purpose of the law for its time. God's strictness with Israel at the time was necessary to ensure purity in His chosen people, because His plan was to bring a perfect Savior into the world through their line. That is why they were chosen. That was His plan all along. If this didn't happen, then every single person to ever exist would be lost and be eternally separated from God (hell). Therefore it was entirely "moral" for God to be strict with Israel during that time, in order that the world be saved. Today, God's still deems adultery to be wrong. But the purpose of God's harsh civil law had already served its purpose- we have Jesus. And our purity is no longer determined by our following of law, but by our faith that Jesus fulfilled it for us and already took the punishment for us.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Death is objective evidence of harm to one's well being."

Really? What being lives forever?

And is long age and suffering from disease and failing health objectively better than dying younger but having accomplished meaningful success and in no pain?

What do you use to define "well being"?

---

No one lives forever. Not even the religious.

Some questions can only be answered by the individual in question.

Well-being - a state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy is one definition.

---

So you agree with my point. Death is part of life.

More, your post confirms that well-being is subjective, ergo any moral rule is subjective.

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

---

Ok, it's generally not followed today, except in Muslim states. If the Jewish law is opposed by today's Christians and Jew's, then either god's morals changed or their morals have changed (excepting Islam). In Islamic states, beheading and lashing is still practiced as ordered in the Quran. Rabbinic law is not much different. All are immoral by my standards, but not by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god.

---

Stoning is not a moral law, it was a civil law of the ancient nation of Israel. Aside from the fact that that country no longer exists, those civil laws were set aside by the New Covenant.

---

Thanks that is what I have been trying to say.

And TS has obviously not read the Quran, if he thinks it says what he posted. I certainly have issues with Islam on certain philosophical grounds, but the cruelty we see in some Islamic states (e.g. Iran, Yemen) is different from the law in other Islamic countries (e.g. Indonesia, Bahrain) happens because that cruelty comes from the culture, not the religion.

---

Actually it's the degree of implementation of the religion. They still practice cruel tenants from Islam in both Bahrain and Indonesia, but the degree is restrained as a matter of secular law. I'm not defending TS or quash's positions on morality, I think they're terribly misguided, but Islamism applied in any degree has terrible social and individual consequences.

---

But again, that comes from the culture rather then the faith. A lot of people don't ever wonder why, since Islam has more than a billion adherents, there is not a lot more of the violence we see from extremists. The reason is that while Islam does not separate political and religious authority, how that is applied depends on the culture.

---

You can call it culture til the cows come home but if it weren't a religious tenet it wouldn't be governmental tenet.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

---

Ok, it's generally not followed today, except in Muslim states. If the Jewish law is opposed by today's Christians and Jew's, then either god's morals changed or their morals have changed (excepting Islam). In Islamic states, beheading and lashing is still practiced as ordered in the Quran. Rabbinic law is not much different. All are immoral by my standards, but not by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god.

---

Stoning is not a moral law, it was a civil law of the ancient nation of Israel. Aside from the fact that that country no longer exists, those civil laws were set aside by the New Covenant.

---

Thanks that is what I have been trying to say.

And TS has obviously not read the Quran, if he thinks it says what he posted. I certainly have issues with Islam on certain philosophical grounds, but the cruelty we see in some Islamic states (e.g. Iran, Yemen) is different from the law in other Islamic countries (e.g. Indonesia, Bahrain) happens because that cruelty comes from the culture, not the religion.

---

Actually it's the degree of implementation of the religion. They still practice cruel tenants from Islam in both Bahrain and Indonesia, but the degree is restrained as a matter of secular law. I'm not defending TS or quash's positions on morality, I think they're terribly misguided, but Islamism applied in any degree has terrible social and individual consequences.

---

But again, that comes from the culture rather then the faith. A lot of people don't ever wonder why, since Islam has more than a billion adherents, there is not a lot more of the violence we see from extremists. The reason is that while Islam does not separate political and religious authority, how that is applied depends on the culture.

---

You can call it culture til the cows come home but if it weren't a religious tenet it wouldn't be governmental tenet.

---

Your opinion does not count as fact, quash. If the Quran does not say it, it's not from the religion. And if most religions not only do not do it but in fact denounce it, it is dishonest to claim it represents the religion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

---

Ok, it's generally not followed today, except in Muslim states. If the Jewish law is opposed by today's Christians and Jew's, then either god's morals changed or their morals have changed (excepting Islam). In Islamic states, beheading and lashing is still practiced as ordered in the Quran. Rabbinic law is not much different. All are immoral by my standards, but not by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god.

---

Stoning is not a moral law, it was a civil law of the ancient nation of Israel. Aside from the fact that that country no longer exists, those civil laws were set aside by the New Covenant.

---

Thanks that is what I have been trying to say.

And TS has obviously not read the Quran, if he thinks it says what he posted. I certainly have issues with Islam on certain philosophical grounds, but the cruelty we see in some Islamic states (e.g. Iran, Yemen) is different from the law in other Islamic countries (e.g. Indonesia, Bahrain) happens because that cruelty comes from the culture, not the religion.

---

Actually it's the degree of implementation of the religion. They still practice cruel tenants from Islam in both Bahrain and Indonesia, but the degree is restrained as a matter of secular law. I'm not defending TS or quash's positions on morality, I think they're terribly misguided, but Islamism applied in any degree has terrible social and individual consequences.

---

But again, that comes from the culture rather then the faith. A lot of people don't ever wonder why, since Islam has more than a billion adherents, there is not a lot more of the violence we see from extremists. The reason is that while Islam does not separate political and religious authority, how that is applied depends on the culture.

---

You can call it culture til the cows come home but if it weren't a religious tenet it wouldn't be governmental tenet.

---

Your opinion does not count as fact, quash. If the Quran does not say it, it's not from the religion. And if most religions not only do not do it but in fact denounce it, it is dishonest to claim it represents the religion.

---

Please. Baptist have a whole concept called priesthood of the believer so that modern problems can be resolved using the bible, whether the modern problem is mentioned or not. Same with Muslims, who implement the Quran through sharia law and shura consultations. It may vary from place to place but the source is religion.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

---

Ok, it's generally not followed today, except in Muslim states. If the Jewish law is opposed by today's Christians and Jew's, then either god's morals changed or their morals have changed (excepting Islam). In Islamic states, beheading and lashing is still practiced as ordered in the Quran. Rabbinic law is not much different. All are immoral by my standards, but not by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god.

---

Stoning is not a moral law, it was a civil law of the ancient nation of Israel. Aside from the fact that that country no longer exists, those civil laws were set aside by the New Covenant.

---

Thanks that is what I have been trying to say.

And TS has obviously not read the Quran, if he thinks it says what he posted. I certainly have issues with Islam on certain philosophical grounds, but the cruelty we see in some Islamic states (e.g. Iran, Yemen) is different from the law in other Islamic countries (e.g. Indonesia, Bahrain) happens because that cruelty comes from the culture, not the religion.

---

Actually it's the degree of implementation of the religion. They still practice cruel tenants from Islam in both Bahrain and Indonesia, but the degree is restrained as a matter of secular law. I'm not defending TS or quash's positions on morality, I think they're terribly misguided, but Islamism applied in any degree has terrible social and individual consequences.

---

But again, that comes from the culture rather then the faith. A lot of people don't ever wonder why, since Islam has more than a billion adherents, there is not a lot more of the violence we see from extremists. The reason is that while Islam does not separate political and religious authority, how that is applied depends on the culture.

---

You can call it culture til the cows come home but if it weren't a religious tenet it wouldn't be governmental tenet.

---

Your opinion does not count as fact, quash. If the Quran does not say it, it's not from the religion. And if most religions not only do not do it but in fact denounce it, it is dishonest to claim it represents the religion.

---

Please. Baptist have a whole concept called priesthood of the believer so that modern problems can be resolved using the bible, whether the modern problem is mentioned or not. Same with Muslims, who implement the Quran through sharia law and shura consultations. It may vary from place to place but the source is religion.

---

You're just making excuses to justify your bias, quash.

Sorry, you are still wrong.

They only hurt themselves quash. I'm not worried about them hurting Christians. We'll get the last hurrah.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

---

Yet Christians cherry pick, invoking the law when it suits their purpose and ignoring or opposing it otherwise.

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

---

Ok, it's generally not followed today, except in Muslim states. If the Jewish law is opposed by today's Christians and Jew's, then either god's morals changed or their morals have changed (excepting Islam). In Islamic states, beheading and lashing is still practiced as ordered in the Quran. Rabbinic law is not much different. All are immoral by my standards, but not by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god.

---

Stoning is not a moral law, it was a civil law of the ancient nation of Israel. Aside from the fact that that country no longer exists, those civil laws were set aside by the New Covenant.

---

Morals and civil laws go hand in hand. Stoning is a punishment for a moral violation. Civil law was handed out to enforce Jewish morals or their god's morals. Do you believe it would be immoral to stone someone?

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

---

Ok, it's generally not followed today, except in Muslim states. If the Jewish law is opposed by today's Christians and Jew's, then either god's morals changed or their morals have changed (excepting Islam). In Islamic states, beheading and lashing is still practiced as ordered in the Quran. Rabbinic law is not much different. All are immoral by my standards, but not by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god.

---

Stoning is not a moral law, it was a civil law of the ancient nation of Israel. Aside from the fact that that country no longer exists, those civil laws were set aside by the New Covenant.

---

Thanks that is what I have been trying to say.

And TS has obviously not read the Quran, if he thinks it says what he posted. I certainly have issues with Islam on certain philosophical grounds, but the cruelty we see in some Islamic states (e.g. Iran, Yemen) is different from the law in other Islamic countries (e.g. Indonesia, Bahrain) happens because that cruelty comes from the culture, not the religion.

---

Their culture is heavily influence by their religion, and their religion is heavily influence by their culture. It is an Islamic religious culture or a culture of Islam. They're virtually inseparable and indistinguishable.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the Jewish law is opposed by today's Christians and Jews, then either god's morals changed or their morals have changed (excepting Islam).

---

This is a false dichotomy. God's moral law has never changed (adultery is always wrong), but the mode of punishment (i.e. stoning) as outlined in his civil law for the Hebrews can change without there being a change in God's moral law. The "morality" of the punishment itself (stoning), which is what you are addressing, is dependent on the purpose of the law for its time. God's strictness with Israel at the time was necessary to ensure purity in His chosen people, because His plan was to bring a perfect Savior into the world through their line. That is why they were chosen. That was His plan all along. If this didn't happen, then every single person to ever exist would be lost and be eternally separated from God (hell). Therefore it was entirely "moral" for God to be strict with Israel during that time, in order that the world be saved. Today, God's still deems adultery to be wrong. But the purpose of God's harsh civil law had already served its purpose- we have Jesus. And our purity is no longer determined by our following of law, but by our faith that Jesus fulfilled it for us and already took the punishment for us.

---

Quote:

---

The "morality" of the punishment itself (stoning), which is what you are addressing, is dependent on the purpose of the law for its time.

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed. God's or the Jews had to change. God is supposedly the one that came up with the form of punishment. In the case that god is a myth, Jewish leaders came up with the moral admonition and the punishment, and their morals changed. Stoning - illegal and immoral today, moral and legal then.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Death is objective evidence of harm to one's well being."

Really? What being lives forever?

And is long age and suffering from disease and failing health objectively better than dying younger but having accomplished meaningful success and in no pain?

What do you use to define "well being"?

---

No one lives forever. Not even the religious.

Some questions can only be answered by the individual in question.

Well-being - a state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy is one definition.

---

So you agree with my point. Death is part of life.

More, your post confirms that well-being is subjective, ergo any moral rule is subjective.

---

Death is the end of life.

The argument is that morals can be based upon objective evidence and how that evidence affects someone's well-bieng.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

---

Yet Christians cherry pick, invoking the law when it suits their purpose and ignoring or opposing it otherwise.

---

As do scientists. The question is what constitutes religion or science by definition.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Death is objective evidence of harm to one's well being."

Really? What being lives forever?

And is long age and suffering from disease and failing health objectively better than dying younger but having accomplished meaningful success and in no pain?

What do you use to define "well being"?

---

No one lives forever. Not even the religious.

Some questions can only be answered by the individual in question.

Well-being - a state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy is one definition.

---

So you agree with my point. Death is part of life.

More, your post confirms that well-being is subjective, ergo any moral rule is subjective.

---

Death is the end of life.

The argument is that morals can be based upon objective evidence and how that evidence affects someone's well-bieng.

---

Death is a part of life. How you deal with your death, from mental acceptance to preparation and counting it in proper perspective, is vital to many people.

Morals include how one deals with death, and awareness of the fluid meaning of 'well-being' in the awareness that we are finite in many important ways.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

---

Ok, it's generally not followed today, except in Muslim states. If the Jewish law is opposed by today's Christians and Jew's, then either god's morals changed or their morals have changed (excepting Islam). In Islamic states, beheading and lashing is still practiced as ordered in the Quran. Rabbinic law is not much different. All are immoral by my standards, but not by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god.

---

Stoning is not a moral law, it was a civil law of the ancient nation of Israel. Aside from the fact that that country no longer exists, those civil laws were set aside by the New Covenant.

---

Thanks that is what I have been trying to say.

And TS has obviously not read the Quran, if he thinks it says what he posted. I certainly have issues with Islam on certain philosophical grounds, but the cruelty we see in some Islamic states (e.g. Iran, Yemen) is different from the law in other Islamic countries (e.g. Indonesia, Bahrain) happens because that cruelty comes from the culture, not the religion.

---

Their culture is heavily influence by their religion, and their religion is heavily influence by their culture. It is an Islamic religious culture or a culture of Islam. They're virtually inseparable and indistinguishable.

---

Only to someone unable or unwilling to look further than their assumptions.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Death is objective evidence of harm to one's well being."

Really? What being lives forever?

And is long age and suffering from disease and failing health objectively better than dying younger but having accomplished meaningful success and in no pain?

What do you use to define "well being"?

---

No one lives forever. Not even the religious.

Some questions can only be answered by the individual in question.

Well-being - a state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy is one definition.

---

So you agree with my point. Death is part of life.

More, your post confirms that well-being is subjective, ergo any moral rule is subjective.

---

Death is the end of life.

The argument is that morals can be based upon objective evidence and how that evidence affects someone's well-bieng.

---

Objective evidence defines laws and social structure, not morals. Where you and quash are misguided is that morals don't need objective evidence to be considered right, nor does the fact that objective evidence supports a moral decision give it its validity. In fact, moral action can run counter to what objective evidence would say is correct, especially when your standard is something as relative of a concept as "good" or "well-being".

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Death is objective evidence of harm to one's well being."

Really? What being lives forever?

And is long age and suffering from disease and failing health objectively better than dying younger but having accomplished meaningful success and in no pain?

What do you use to define "well being"?

---

No one lives forever. Not even the religious.

Some questions can only be answered by the individual in question.

Well-being - a state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy is one definition.

---

So you agree with my point. Death is part of life.

More, your post confirms that well-being is subjective, ergo any moral rule is subjective.

---

Death is the end of life.

The argument is that morals can be based upon objective evidence and how that evidence affects someone's well-bieng.

---

Objective evidence defines laws and social structure, not morals. Where you and quash are misguided is that morals don't need objective evidence to be considered right, nor does the fact that objective evidence supports a moral decision give it its validity. In fact, moral action can run counter to what objective evidence would say is correct, especially when your standard is something as relative of a concept as "good" or "well-being".

---

That's why I think morals should be based upon empirical objective evidence as to what is harmful and in the best interest of other's well-being and ability to flourish. Morals based upon someone's handed down and sometimes reinterpreted religious views lead to beliefs that things like beheadings, lashings, historic stoning, repression of women, (presidential) bullying, are morally acceptable.

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Death is objective evidence of harm to one's well being."

Really? What being lives forever?

And is long age and suffering from disease and failing health objectively better than dying younger but having accomplished meaningful success and in no pain?

What do you use to define "well being"?

---

No one lives forever. Not even the religious.

Some questions can only be answered by the individual in question.

Well-being - a state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy is one definition.

---

So you agree with my point. Death is part of life.

More, your post confirms that well-being is subjective, ergo any moral rule is subjective.

---

Death is the end of life.

The argument is that morals can be based upon objective evidence and how that evidence affects someone's well-bieng.

---

Objective evidence defines laws and social structure, not morals. Where you and quash are misguided is that morals don't need objective evidence to be considered right, nor does the fact that objective evidence supports a moral decision give it its validity. In fact, moral action can run counter to what objective evidence would say is correct, especially when your standard is something as relative of a concept as "good" or "well-being".

---

That's why I think morals should be based upon empirical objective evidence as to what is harmful and in the best interest of other's well-being and ability to flourish. Morals based upon someone's handed down and sometimes reinterpreted religious views lead to beliefs that things like beheadings, lashings, historic stoning, repression of women, (presidential) bullying, are morally acceptable.

---

Or someone's handed down and reinterpreted science. Let's not pretend there's not dogma and hypotheticals ingrained in science. But regardless, morality exists without empiricism, and empiricism isn't a value that can be lived by.

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Death is objective evidence of harm to one's well being."

Really? What being lives forever?

And is long age and suffering from disease and failing health objectively better than dying younger but having accomplished meaningful success and in no pain?

What do you use to define "well being"?

---

No one lives forever. Not even the religious.

Some questions can only be answered by the individual in question.

Well-being - a state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy is one definition.

---

So you agree with my point. Death is part of life.

More, your post confirms that well-being is subjective, ergo any moral rule is subjective.

---

Death is the end of life.

The argument is that morals can be based upon objective evidence and how that evidence affects someone's well-bieng.

---

Objective evidence defines laws and social structure, not morals. Where you and quash are misguided is that morals don't need objective evidence to be considered right, nor does the fact that objective evidence supports a moral decision give it its validity. In fact, moral action can run counter to what objective evidence would say is correct, especially when your standard is something as relative of a concept as "good" or "well-being".

---

That's why I think morals should be based upon empirical objective evidence as to what is harmful and in the best interest of other's well-being and ability to flourish. Morals based upon someone's handed down and sometimes reinterpreted religious views lead to beliefs that things like beheadings, lashings, historic stoning, repression of women, (presidential) bullying, are morally acceptable.

---

Or someone's handed down and reinterpreted science. Let's not pretend there's not dogma and hypotheticals ingrained in science. But regardless, morality exists without empiricism, and empiricism isn't a value that can be lived by.

---

Dogma is accepted as incontrovertibly true without subject to question. Science is knowledge obtained from facts through question, observation, experimentation, and testing. Science is always open to question. Science exposes dogma.

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Death is objective evidence of harm to one's well being."

Really? What being lives forever?

And is long age and suffering from disease and failing health objectively better than dying younger but having accomplished meaningful success and in no pain?

What do you use to define "well being"?

---

No one lives forever. Not even the religious.

Some questions can only be answered by the individual in question.

Well-being - a state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy is one definition.

---

So you agree with my point. Death is part of life.

More, your post confirms that well-being is subjective, ergo any moral rule is subjective.

---

Death is the end of life.

The argument is that morals can be based upon objective evidence and how that evidence affects someone's well-bieng.

---

Objective evidence defines laws and social structure, not morals. Where you and quash are misguided is that morals don't need objective evidence to be considered right, nor does the fact that objective evidence supports a moral decision give it its validity. In fact, moral action can run counter to what objective evidence would say is correct, especially when your standard is something as relative of a concept as "good" or "well-being".

---

That's why I think morals should be based upon empirical objective evidence as to what is harmful and in the best interest of other's well-being and ability to flourish. Morals based upon someone's handed down and sometimes reinterpreted religious views lead to beliefs that things like beheadings, lashings, historic stoning, repression of women, (presidential) bullying, are morally acceptable.

---

Or someone's handed down and reinterpreted science. Let's not pretend there's not dogma and hypotheticals ingrained in science. But regardless, morality exists without empiricism, and empiricism isn't a value that can be lived by.

---

Dogma is accepted as incontrovertibly true without subject to question. Science is knowledge obtained from facts through question, observation, experimentation, and testing. Science is always open to question. Science exposes dogma.

---

You have admitted yourself that morals are subjective, Ergo, they cannot be objectively based.

Also, subjective morals are often good. All we know of honor and goodness comes from personal experience which became history. Every philosophy starts with what we know from human behavior, and for all your focus on the bad which men do, religion is responsible for practical application of charity, mercy, and hope, which do not come from laboratories.

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Death is objective evidence of harm to one's well being."

Really? What being lives forever?

And is long age and suffering from disease and failing health objectively better than dying younger but having accomplished meaningful success and in no pain?

What do you use to define "well being"?

---

No one lives forever. Not even the religious.

Some questions can only be answered by the individual in question.

Well-being - a state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy is one definition.

---

So you agree with my point. Death is part of life.

More, your post confirms that well-being is subjective, ergo any moral rule is subjective.

---

Death is the end of life.

The argument is that morals can be based upon objective evidence and how that evidence affects someone's well-bieng.

---

Objective evidence defines laws and social structure, not morals. Where you and quash are misguided is that morals don't need objective evidence to be considered right, nor does the fact that objective evidence supports a moral decision give it its validity. In fact, moral action can run counter to what objective evidence would say is correct, especially when your standard is something as relative of a concept as "good" or "well-being".

---

That's why I think morals should be based upon empirical objective evidence as to what is harmful and in the best interest of other's well-being and ability to flourish. Morals based upon someone's handed down and sometimes reinterpreted religious views lead to beliefs that things like beheadings, lashings, historic stoning, repression of women, (presidential) bullying, are morally acceptable.

---

Or someone's handed down and reinterpreted science. Let's not pretend there's not dogma and hypotheticals ingrained in science. But regardless, morality exists without empiricism, and empiricism isn't a value that can be lived by.

---

Dogma is accepted as incontrovertibly true without subject to question. Science is knowledge obtained from facts through question, observation, experimentation, and testing. Science is always open to question. Science exposes dogma.

---

Science suffers from some of the same "unfalsifiable" quandaries that is thrown at religion. Prevailing thought is the hallmark. You hammer religion because of modern evaluations of historical customs, but say that's the strength of science. But back on topic, empiricism is not a form or substitute for morality.

I don't know how to say it any plainer. Morals are values determined by men. Those determinations can either be based upon objective evidence of what is in the best interest and well-being of individuals and others, or upon non-objective or subjective ideas such as religious ideas.

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't know how to say it any plainer. Morals are values determined by men. Those determinations can either be based upon objective evidence of what is in the best interest and well-being of individuals and others, or upon non-objective or subjective ideas such as religious ideas.

---

Read through the thread, TS. It's already been established, many times here, that there is no such thing as "objective evidence of what is in the best interest".

The closest evidence we have is found in the Gospel.

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't know how to say it any plainer. Morals are values determined by men. Those determinations can either be based upon objective evidence of what is in the best interest and well-being of individuals and others, or upon non-objective or subjective ideas such as religious ideas.

---

And so you seem to have arrived at some sort of Utilitarianism-flavored summum bonum while as an atheist I assume you think/believe/assert we inhabit a materialist universe. Truly, how can you even have any basis for morality that is not deeply absurd given our meaningless existence. Why this continuing insistence on faith and/or belief in any system of morality?

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't know how to say it any plainer. Morals are values determined by men. Those determinations can either be based upon objective evidence of what is in the best interest and well-being of individuals and others, or upon non-objective or subjective ideas such as religious ideas.

---

Read through the thread, TS. It's already been established, many times here, that there is no such thing as "objective evidence of what is in the best interest".

The closest evidence we have is found in the Gospel.

---

Again, what I am saying is objective evidence can be used by man to determine what is in the best interest of others in terms of their well-being. Morals can and should be based upon that determination. Religious moral views or writings are cultural ideas about what is moral, based upon someone(s) subjective religious interpretations, views or beliefs.

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I don't know how to say it any plainer. Morals are values determined by men. Those determinations can either be based upon objective evidence of what is in the best interest and well-being of individuals and others, or upon non-objective or subjective ideas such as religious ideas.

---

Read through the thread, TS. It's already been established, many times here, that there is no such thing as "objective evidence of what is in the best interest".

The closest evidence we have is found in the Gospel.

---

Again, what I am saying is objective evidence can be used by man to determine what is in the best interest of others in terms of their well-being. Morals can and should be based upon that determination. Religious moral views or writings are cultural ideas about what is moral, based upon someone(s) subjective religious interpretations, views or beliefs.

---

Again, what you call "objective evidence" depends on personal opinion and is therefore subjective by definition.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.

---

The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.

Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.

---

Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.

---

Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".

---

State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.