budaatum:

You are amusingly persistent, I give you that.

The above is a clear example of different countries making laws for themselves. America says "homosexuality is not immoral" (note my careful choice of words here, they are not saying ("homosexuality is moral" ), while Nigeria says "homosexuality is immoral". America decides they shall not persecute people for being homosexuals, while Nigeria says they shall throw homosexuals in jail. You then ask if either country has proven that homosexuality is immoral or moral? And I ask, 'to whom?'

Imagine buda is a homosexual. While she might rather live in America where she is not illegal, she lives in Nigeria. Do tell, does buda homosexual become immoral in buda's eyes just because a law was past against homosexuality? Does buda change her ways because of the law, or does buda not just say "they should come put policeman in my bedroom and arrest me when I homo the stupid idiots, who leave more serious crime unsolved but concern themselves with what I do in the privacy of my bedroom!"

So, I ask again. To whom does the morality or immorality of homosexuality have to be proven?

I'm on the verge of banging my head on the floor right now. I just repeatedly banged it on the mattress but that did not kill me.

if you read that post, you would realise I said that the law does not prove morality.
the law is subjective and subjectivity cannot prove morality.

I was replying tintingz who was infering that the law was a guide/proof to morality.

I know I stated somewhere than man is not bound to man's law because it is made by man.

buda does not consider is homosexual self immoral when in Nigeria. buda own personal bias and opinion makes him conclude that homosexuality is perfectly fine.
buda is right in buda's eyes and the law is wrong. that is buda's subjective opinion.

now antibuda might come along and say the law is right, homosexuality is immoral. antibuda's opinion is also shaped by his personal bias. to antibuda, homosexuality is immoral. that is antibuda's subjective opinion.

now whose opinion is the real truth?

the answer is neither. both are subjective opinions. both are biased.

if buda becomes the law, he would probably make homosexuality legal. if antibuda becomes the law, homosexuality remains illegal.

the law cannot be a true source of morality. the law is just a reflection of man's subjective view. the law cannot show true morality and immorality. anyone using the law as his basis of morality blows with the wind. he subjects himself to something that is subject to him. he created the law, he could change it without consequence. man decided homosexuality is immoral , man can also decide it is moral.

man makes the law what he pleases. man shapes the law according to his bias. man's bias in the law makes the law subjective and hence not a real truth. anyone can follow his personal truth and there is no reason why one should give up his truth to follow another person's truth when neither of their truths are real truths.

morality or immorality of homosexuality has to be proven to all men, or all are free to follow their own subjective opinion. homosexuality would neither be moral or immoral. it would be up to individuals to decide based on their bias.

when morality is subjective, nothing is truly moral and nothing is truly immoral.

budaatum:

Those others not being I, who kicked your ass, right, who knows full well what I did and the motive and intention behind it - the sense I intended to have kicked into you when I kicked you ass?

Yep, it's okay that you are indifferent to me kicking your ass. In fact, since my kicking your ass had no effect in making you any more sensible, it is in fact best that I let you wonder off to inflict yourself on someone else. I'd pray that you meet a person with a bigger boot than I have. Hopefully, they might kick the sense I failed to kick into your ass, into you.

what you are doing here is to try to make me conform to your truth. your truth is no truer than my truth so there is no reason for me to be conformed. afterall our truths are subjective. there is no universal truth. everyone shapes his truth according to his bias.

Gggg102:


I'm on the verge of banging my head on the floor right now. I just repeatedly banged it on the mattress but that did not kill me.

if you read that post, you would realise I said that the law does not prove morality.
the law is subjective and subjectivity cannot prove morality.

I was replying tintingz who was infering that the law was a guide/proof to morality.

I know I stated somewhere than man is not bound to man's law because it is made by man.

buda does not consider is homosexual self immoral when in Nigeria. buda own personal bias and opinion makes him conclude that homosexuality is perfectly fine.
buda is right in buda's eyes and the law is wrong. that is buda's subjective opinion.

now antibuda might come along and say the law is right, homosexuality is immoral. antibuda's opinion is also shaped by his personal bias. to antibuda, homosexuality is immoral. that is antibuda's subjective opinion.

now whose opinion is the real truth?

the answer is neither. both are subjective opinions. both are biased.

if buda becomes the law, he would probably make homosexuality legal. if antibuda becomes the law, homosexuality remains illegal.

the law cannot be a true source of morality. the law is just a reflection of man's subjective view. the law cannot show true morality and immorality. anyone using the law as his basis of morality blows with the wind. he subjects himself to something that is subject to him. he created the law, he could change it without consequence. man decided homosexuality is immoral , man can also decide it is moral.

man makes the law what he pleases. man shapes the law according to his bias. man's bias in the law makes the law subjective and hence not a real truth. anyone can follow his personal truth and there is no reason why one should give up his truth to follow another person's truth when neither of their truths are real truths.

morality or immorality of homosexuality has to be proven to all men, or all are free to follow their own subjective opinion. homosexuality would neither be moral or immoral. it would be up to individuals to decide based on their bias.

when morality is subjective, nothing is truly moral and nothing is truly immoral.

Laws are created by the people, people determine what's moral for themselves, laws are amended when the people crave for change(protest), you're not above the law concerning to what you expressed publicly. Morality is splitted into different types, like I said it's complex.

Homosexuality was once immoral in America now it's not, why? Because Americans are enlighten and advanced in the subject of homosexuality, they had to amend the law.

In Nigeria majority are still influenced by Religion and traditions, majority don't care about the Scientific research on the subject of homosexuality because we're not advanced.

In muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, homosexuals are killed because thier archaic book said so.

Gggg102:



not everyone base their morality on empathy. that's the thing about subjective morality. there is no fixed base.

Then such person lack empathy.

there are people whose morality revolves around how they feel if they perform an act. they don't think of how they feel if others do it to them. as long as an action benefits them, then it is moral. that is their own biased opinion.
there are others who could be indifferent to such actions so to them it's do me I do you.

Wait for that same action to hit them and see how they would feel.

Some revenge themselves, some allow the law to do the job, some don't revenge, they believe revenge won't solve the case.

my opinion is mine, and yours is yours. none is truer than the other.
same with subjective morality.
my morality is mine and yours is yours. none is truth and neither is false.

Yes your opinion is yours, again when your opinion is expressed publicly then be ready to be criticized.

Gggg102:


what you are doing here is to try to make me conform to your truth. your truth is no truer than my truth so there is no reason for me to be conformed. afterall our truths are subjective. there is no universal truth. everyone shapes his truth according to his bias.

No! I am not trying to have you "conform to my truth" at all. Do you not remember my advise about you never changing to my atheist view? I do not utter my words lightly or without thought, and neither do I forget what I have said in the past. So please!
It is you who swings both sides confusing yourself! It's why I'm being so patient too. Sometime in the future, you'd read what you have written and your own eyes shall open.

I have consistently said that regardless of what I may cook up in my head, some laws are accepted - murder, theft, and the likes, and whatever I think in my head regarding them is irrelevant. No one would agree that killing people is morally acceptable, baring a few circumstances i.e. war, "America's stand your ground", and such like, and if those things were done to me I'd hardly be pleased.

And I have said that morality of the individual is subjective to the individual. That is the reason that despite objectively or subjectively made laws, subjective humans, god or not, would murder, fornicate, be gay, steal, etc. It's a distinction you continously fail to understand. The word 'individual' gives their morality subjectivity.

Laws (gods' or humans) are assumed to be, or should be, objectively derived. By that, it is meant that actual rationally justifiable reasons are considered before those laws are put in place or changed if necessary.

While the morality of the individual is subjective to the individual, regardless of the objectivity of the law. But when the two collide, the individual is like the American destroyer telling the Canadian lighthouse to get out the way, it wants to go past! The law though, does not bend to individual morality. We both know which must bend.

I'm not asking you to conform to my truth Gggg102. In this same thread you saw someone ask me to convince him of atheism, and you saw me ask him to do what he himself said needs to be done. I am asking you to understand. But if you think the two are the same as you have continously done, then, well. I don't know what to say really. Do know though that despite my responses being to you, there are tons of others who read and learn from this conversation we've been having. So help them God, lol.


This is the transcript of a radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations 10-10-95.

Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.

Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.

Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.

Americans: This is the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in the United States' Atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that YOU change your course 15 degrees north, that's one five degrees north, or countermeasures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship.

Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

tintingz:


Laws are created by the people, people determine what's moral for themselves, laws are amended when the people crave for change(protest), you're not above the law concerning to what you expressed publicly. Morality is splitted into different types, like I said it's complex.

Homosexuality was once immoral in America now it's not, why? Because Americans are enlighten and advanced in the subject of homosexuality, they had to amend the law.

In Nigeria majority are still influenced by Religion and traditions, majority don't care about the Scientific research on the subject of homosexuality because we're not advanced.

In muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, homosexuals are killed because thier archaic book said so.

all of them have different morality, but since morality is subjective, none of their moralities is truth and none of their moralities is false.

tintingz:
Then such person lack empathy.

Wait for that same action to hit them and see how they would feel.

Some revenge themselves, some allow the law to do the job, some don't revenge, they believe revenge won't solve the case.

Yes your opinion is yours, again when your opinion is expressed publicly then be ready to be criticized.

the person lacks empathy and builds his subjective morality from his lack of empathy.

those who revenge and those who don't act on their personal conviction. no one is right and no one is wrong.

not everyone is empathetic. and their non-empathetic morality is no worse than your empathetic morality. no morality is better or worse than the other. everything is subjective.

their criticism would have no effect on me. they are criticizing based on their bias.
their opinion is no truer than mine.

budaatum:

No! I am not trying to have you "conform to my truth" at all. Do you not remember my advise about you never changing to my atheist view? I do not utter my words lightly or without thought, and neither do I forget what I have said in the past. So please!
It is you who swings both sides confusing yourself! It's why I'm being so patient too. Sometime in the future, you'd read what you have written and your own eyes shall open.

I have consistently said that regardless of what I may cook up in my head, some laws are accepted - murder, theft, and the likes, and whatever I think in my head regarding them is irrelevant. No one would agree that killing people is morally acceptable, baring a few circumstances i.e. war, "America's stand your ground", and such like, and if those things were done to me I'd hardly be pleased.

And I have said that morality of the individual is subjective to the individual. That is the reason that despite objectively or subjectively made laws, subjective humans, god or not, would murder, fornicate, be gay, steal, etc. It's a distinction you continously fail to understand. The word 'individual' gives their morality subjectivity.

Laws (gods' or humans) are assumed to be, or should be, objectively derived. By that, it is meant that actual rationally justifiable reasons are considered before those laws are put in place or changed if necessary.

While the morality of the individual is subjective to the individual, regardless of the objectivity of the law. But when the two collide, the individual is like the American destroyer telling the Canadian lighthouse to get out the way, it wants to go past! The law though, does not bend to individual morality. We both know which must bend.

I'm not asking you to conform to my truth Gggg102. In this same thread you saw someone ask me to convince him of atheism, and you saw me ask him to do what he himself said needs to be done. I am asking you to understand. But if you think the two are the same as you have continously done, then, well. I don't know what to say really. Do know though that despite my responses being to you, there are tons of others who read and learn from this conversation we've been having. So help them God, lol.


This is the transcript of a radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations 10-10-95.

Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.

Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.

Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.

Americans: This is the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in the United States' Atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that YOU change your course 15 degrees north, that's one five degrees north, or countermeasures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship.

Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

if some actions are bad irregardless of anyone's opinion, those actions are objectively immoral.

if morality is subjective, people will steal fornicate or be gay without being actually right or wrong.

the lighthouse and the destroyer can only work if there is objective morality. I said this earlier. when a theist believes morality comes from his god, he believes that morality is objective. his opinion cannot change it.
to a Christian for example, homosexuality is a sin. a Christian could choose to believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality he could be the gayest guy on earth and he could believe he is moral. that does not change the fact that homosexuality is illegal. he could pretend all he wants, but when the time comes, he would be punished for immorality by god. he would have no excuse. his lighthouse must give way.

if morality is subjective as it is, nobody has to give way to the other. it is like two rafts on a collision course. they have equal strength and each is able to stand it's ground. they could collide and remain grounded forever. one can't bully the other out of the way.

Gggg102:


I'm on the verge of banging my head on the floor right now. I just repeatedly banged it on the mattress but that did not kill me.

if you read that post, you would realise I said that the law does not prove morality.
the law is subjective and subjectivity cannot prove morality.

I was replying tintingz who was infering that the law was a guide/proof to morality.

I know I stated somewhere than man is not bound to man's law because it is made by man.

buda does not consider is homosexual self immoral when in Nigeria. buda own personal bias and opinion makes him conclude that homosexuality is perfectly fine.
buda is right in buda's eyes and the law is wrong. that is buda's subjective opinion.

now antibuda might come along and say the law is right, homosexuality is immoral. antibuda's opinion is also shaped by his personal bias. to antibuda, homosexuality is immoral. that is antibuda's subjective opinion.

now whose opinion is the real truth?

the answer is neither. both are subjective opinions. both are biased.

if buda becomes the law, he would probably make homosexuality legal. if antibuda becomes the law, homosexuality remains illegal.

the law cannot be a true source of morality. the law is just a reflection of man's subjective view. the law cannot show true morality and immorality. anyone using the law as his basis of morality blows with the wind. he subjects himself to something that is subject to him. he created the law, he could change it without consequence. man decided homosexuality is immoral , man can also decide it is moral.

man makes the law what he pleases. man shapes the law according to his bias. man's bias in the law makes the law subjective and hence not a real truth. anyone can follow his personal truth and there is no reason why one should give up his truth to follow another person's truth when neither of their truths are real truths.

morality or immorality of homosexuality has to be proven to all men, or all are free to follow their own subjective opinion. homosexuality would neither be moral or immoral. it would be up to individuals to decide based on their bias.

when morality is subjective, nothing is truly moral and nothing is truly immoral.

Bravo, in parts.

You said, "law does not prove morality", and I agree, but when you ask "whose opinion is the real truth?" You are bringing in a different concept, "truth" , which has a completely separate meaning, and to claim "neither" as you did, is wrong!

Take theft, for instance. I might hold it in some stupid head of mine that it's okay for me to rob you. But you would certainly hear me also claim that it is not okay for you to rob me. So even if I were to, erroneously claim (for that is the only sense by which such a claim can be made), that my robbing you is a moral act of mine, I would have some difficulty including the word "truth" in that sentence, wouldn't I? And if I managed to include it in the presence of sensible beings, they are bound to look at me funny.

Now, consider the law that says "theft is wrong and shall be punished". It might be made by subjective individuals, but it is an objective law. Objective in as much as it applies equally to everyone subject to that law. The same applies to homosexuality. The country that passes a law claiming it is illegal has passed an objective law in as much as it has been passed legally and applies to all. And equally so too has a nation that has passed a law saying it is not illegal. Both are saying that their laws apply in their jurisdiction alone, which is why I cannot use the law in America or UK regarding homosexuality as defense in a Nigerian court.

And regarding which is true, both are 'true' under the jurisdiction in which they prevail, in as much as the laws are as stated.

And as to which is morally correct, both are, in their own jurisdictions. I may however live in America and as an individual claim homosexuality is immoral. But that is indeed my subjective opinion, and I would be unable to force my morality on anyone in America but would be able to in Nigeria by simply reporting the homosexual to the police.

Morality, is subjective. It is subjective by virtue of the fact that morality is determined by the subjective individual. The law, which is objectively derived, as you rightly said (albeit subjectively by the mere fact that subjective individuals determine it) does not determine my morality. The law may say one must not steal, but that does not stop me being a thief, nor does it mean theft is morally right, or that "nothing is truly moral and nothing is truly immoral". However I determine to cook it, theft is not morally accepted in the society I live in. And to freely and openly be a thief, I would have to move to a country that has no laws against theft.

The law is some objectively derived mandate procscribing certain actions, while individual morality is subjectively determined by each individual. The law gives moral guidance, but the individual determines their own individual moral stance towards it.

Gggg102:


the person lacks empathy and builds his subjective morality from his lack of empathy.

Such person can be harmful to the society.

those who revenge and those who don't act on their personal conviction. no one is right and no one is wrong.

ok

not everyone is empathetic. and their non-empathetic morality is no worse than your empathetic morality. no morality is better or worse than the other. everything is subjective.

Yes morality is subjective and No, a terrorists morality is worse, it is also worse when his relatives are also killed by another terrorists.

It's complex.

their criticism would have no effect on me. they are criticizing based on their bias.
their opinion is no truer than mine.

What if I criticize your opinion and I prove you're wrong?

Gggg102:


if some actions are bad irregardless of anyone's opinion, those actions are objectively immoral.

if morality is subjective, people will steal fornicate or be gay without being actually right or wrong.

No. It does not work that way. We do not speak in vacuums. There has been quite a lot of debate on the phrase "objective morality" and "objective immorality". And trying to make out that God's law is morality that is objective the way you are here is not flying. It is like trying to "bully the other out of the way".

Please read this on the topic to comprehend the complexity involved.

It is subjective individuals that determine a thing to be good or bad. Their opinions matter. Slavery in the Bible is a clear case in point. If we had not defied God, we would still openly be entitled to enslave one another. Homosexuality is another. Nations that deemed it illegal in the past would continue to deem it illegal forever after. But that is not the case anymore.

tintingz:
Such person can be harmful to the society.

ok

Yes morality is subjective and No, a terrorists morality is worse, it is also worse when his relatives are also killed by another terrorists.

It's complex.

What if I criticize your opinion and I prove you're wrong?

the person is harmful based on your subjective stand point.
the person may see himself as good.
your morality is tied to the society, other people might not tie their morality to the society. the person might not care for the society.
e. g. vegetarians think killing animals for food is immoral because it harms the animal. meat eaters think killing animals for food is moral because it benefits him. the vegetarian morality considers the animal society while the meat eater morality considers human society alone.
your morality considers human society, other people morality may consider themselves alone.
If morality is objective, only one of them would be right, the other would be wrong. however, morality is subjective so none of them is right and none is wrong.

how would one be worse than the other when the base of judgement is your biased feeling. you feel the terrorist opinion is worse, the terrorist feels his opinion is better. both your judgements are not objective, they are personal opinions.

you can not prove I'm wrong without there being an objective right or objective wrong.

Gggg102:

buda does not consider is homosexual self immoral when in Nigeria. buda own personal bias and opinion makes him conclude that homosexuality is perfectly fine.
buda is right in buda's eyes and the law is wrong. that is buda's subjective opinion.

now antibuda might come along and say the law is right, homosexuality is immoral. antibuda's opinion is also shaped by his personal bias. to antibuda, homosexuality is immoral. that is antibuda's subjective opinion.

now whose opinion is the real truth?

Humans have come up with a wonderful way to ensure buda and antibudas don't go passing arbitrary laws.

There was a time when mere claiming some God said, was enough to impose the desired moral behaviour on people. Communal approbation and fear of Gods judgement in the afterlife worked wonders until some people said to hell with the Gods. So God told Samuel to go get Saul, make him a King so he can enforce the law. And that worked for a while until people who didn't worship the same Gods came and lived amongst them. But the emperor's from far away imposed their delegated person to enforce the laws. But the laws were as you described above, buda's law when emperor buda was in power, and antibuda laws when emperor buda wasn't in power with no concern for the people the law applied to. For trust me, while buda and the antibudas were passing laws for the populace, those laws did not quite apply to us!

So, enlightened people came along. Convinced everyone of how hypocritical we were as far as the law was concerned with our imposition of arbitrary non-objective and completely subjective laws on people that we had no intention of obeying ourselves. And convinced the people themselves that they should decide who amongst us get to make the laws, and decide the laws that are made. And it is thence that we have democracy. The election of those who represent our views and who would pass the laws we the people wish to live by, and not some decree from heaven or those buda and antibudas with their arbitrary non-reasoned nor objectively derived laws.

I've shown an example of this process here.

What amazing beings the human race seems to be at solving the problems of their societies.

budaatum:

Bravo, in parts.

You said, "law does not prove morality", and I agree, but when you ask "whose opinion is the real truth?" You are bringing in a different concept, "truth" , which has a completely separate meaning, and to claim "neither" as you did, is wrong!

Take theft, for instance. I might hold it in some stupid head of mine that it's okay for me to rob you. But you would certainly hear me also claim that it is not okay for you to rob me. So even if I were to, erroneously claim (for that is the only sense by which such a claim can be made), that my robbing you is a moral act of mine, I would have some difficulty including the word "truth" in that sentence, wouldn't I? And if I managed to include it in the presence of sensible beings, they are bound to look at me funny.

Now, consider the law that says "theft is wrong and shall be punished". It might be made by subjective individuals, but it is an objective law. Objective in as much as it applies equally to everyone subject to that law. The same applies to homosexuality. The country that passes a law claiming it is illegal has passed an objective law in as much as it has been passed legally and applies to all. And equally so too has a nation that has passed a law saying it is not illegal. Both are saying that their laws apply in their jurisdiction alone, which is why I cannot use the law regarding homosexuality as defense in a Nigerian court.

And regarding which is true, both are 'true' under the jurisdiction in which they prevail, in as much as the laws are as stated.

And as to which is morally correct, both are, in their own jurisdictions. I may however live in America and as an individual claim homosexuality is immoral. But that is indeed my subjective opinion, and I would be unable to force my morality on anyone in America but would be able to in Nigeria by simply reporting the homosexual to the police.

Morality, is subjective. It is subjective by virtue of the fact that morality is determined by the subjective individual. The law, which is objectively derived, as you rightly said (albeit subjectively by the mere fact that subjective individuals determine it) does not determine my morality. The law may say one must not steal, but that does not stop me being a thief, nor does it mean theft is morally right, or that "nothing is truly moral and nothing is truly immoral". However I determine to cook it, theft is not morally accepted in the society I live in. And to freely and openly be a thief, I would have to move to a country that has no laws against theft.

The law is some objectively derived mandate procscribing certain actions, while individual morality is subjectively determined by each individual. The law gives moral guidance, but the individual determines their own individual moral stance towards it.

if the law is objective, it would be consistent. the law is a function of human bias.
both are subjectively true but none is objectively true.
the law saying you should not steal does not make stealing wrong objectively.

since morality is subjective, nothing makes stealing or any other action objectively right or wrong.

TOSIN116:
The bible is a story book written by who?
Can you sit down and write your own unique book?
Did you even know how we got the bible.
Ignorant !mbecile.

how did we get the bible?

TOSIN116:
The bible is a story book written by who?
Can you sit down and write your own unique book?
Did you even know how we got the bible.
Ignorant !mbecile.

how did we get the bible?

enilove:



The Bible is an account of incidents , events and statements regarding the facts pertinent to our lives and how to live and not regret after death.

The bible says :

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Romans 15:4 KJV
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.


What is magical about the Bible?

You should be able to prove your point beyond mere allegations.
Where are your facts?

"" 2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, ""


How can u single out one portion within one of the books that made up the bible as evidence that the whole bible is written by God

The bible is made up of 66 different books written by many Authors, at least more than 40 authors

budaatum:

No. It does not work that way. We do not speak in vacuums. There has been quite a lot of debate on the phrase "objective morality" and "objective immorality". And trying to make out that God's law is morality that is objective the way you are here is not flying. It is like trying to "bully the other out of the way".

Please read this on the topic to comprehend the complexity involved.

It is subjective individuals that determine a thing to be good or bad. Their opinions matter. Slavery in the Bible is a clear case in point. If we had not defied God, we would still openly be entitled to enslave one another. Homosexuality is another. Nations that deemed it illegal in the past would continue to deem it illegal forever after. But that is not the case anymore.

humans determined slavery is immoral, humans can also conclude that slavery is moral. whatever humans conclude is subjective, it is not universal. I don't have to subscribe to your version of morality. I can create my truth.

if god is real, and he decides slavery is moral, no amount of human defiance of god would change that position.
we would just be living in deceit till the time of judgement. no amount of subjective opinion would change an objective truth.

jokerr:
This story book called bible is just one very big story with magic, slavery, stupidity, etc embedded in it as lessons.
...someone will wake up one morning and tell me DAT a whale swallowed a human being and spit him out alive after some days...
...one book will tell me DAT a man was killed and den came back to life after three days , is he tom and Jerry...
....or someone will tell me that there is a place filled with fire for people who do not share their madness...
its so funny how the human mind is still enslaved ....

You need to be transformed by receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and personal Savior. Outside this, the bible will continue to be a story book to you.

The bible is the most accurate prophetic book any where in the world. Everything it says will happen happen with precise accuracy. It's only a joker who will say it's a mere story book.

The bible is the infallible word of God.

Repent and receive Jesus Christ. Salvation is now!.

budaatum:

Humans have come up with a wonderful way to ensure buda and antibudas don't go passing arbitrary laws.

There was a time when mere claiming some God said, was enough to impose the desired moral behaviour on people. Communal approbation and fear of Gods judgement in the afterlife worked wonders until some people said to hell with the Gods. So God told Samuel to go get Saul, make him a King so he can enforce the law. And that worked for a while until people who didn't worship the same Gods came and lived amongst them. But the emperor's from far away imposed their delegated person to enforce the laws. But the laws were as you described above, buda's law when emperor buda was in power, and antibuda laws when emperor buda wasn't in power with no concern for the people the law applied to. For trust me, while buda and the antibudas were passing laws for the populace, those laws did not quite apply to us!

So, enlightened people came along. Convinced everyone of how hypocritical we were as far as the law was concerned with our imposition of arbitrary non-objective and completely subjective laws on people that we had no intention of obeying ourselves. And convinced the people themselves that they should decide who amongst us get to make the laws, and decide the laws that are made. And it is thence that we have democracy. The election of those who represent our views and who would pass the laws we the people wish to live by, and not some decree from heaven or those buda and antibudas with their arbitrary non-reasoned nor objectively derived laws.

I've shown an example of this process here.

What amazing beings the human race seems to be at solving the problems of their societies.

you pass the law you WISH to live by.
if I wish to live by theft, I can create a personal moral compass that makes theft moral. since I create may own moral compass, I can do anything and still consider myself moral. I can always twist the code to make whatever I do moral.

objectivity does not care about wishes.
you are free to do whatever you want, but if you go against the code, you are immoral. you cannot twist the code to make you moral.

Gggg102:


humans determined slavery is immoral, humans can also conclude that slavery is moral. whatever humans conclude is subjective, it is not universal. I don't have to subscribe to your version of morality. I can create my truth.

if god is real, and he decides slavery is moral, no amount of human defiance of god would change that position.
we would just be living in deceit till the time of judgement. no amount of subjective opinion would change an objective truth.

God, supposedly said homosexuality was immoral. But some countries have gone ahead and decriminalised homosexuality, effectively telling God where to go. It's what we do, as human beings.

Humans did at one time, claim slavery was moral, and then claimed their Gods approved! But humans eventually decided it is immoral. God can bloody well do whatever God likes. We humans wouldn't care. And that is exactly what we do.

Humans are way more enlightened these days and know that we are not made for the law, but make laws for ourselves to live by. And rightly so.

The phrase "objective truth" does not apply except n religious rhetoric, and not many buy that stuff anymore. The beginning of wisdom may be the fear of God, but now we got wisdom, God is dead, as far as some are concerned.

Gggg102:


you pass the law you WISH to live by.
if I wish to live by theft, I can create a personal moral compass that makes theft moral. since I create may own moral compass, I can do anything and still consider myself moral. I can always twist the code to make whatever I do moral.

objectivity does not care about wishes.
you are free to do whatever you want, but if you go against the code, you are immoral. you cannot twist the code to make you moral.

You don't "pass the law you WISH to live by". Not if you live in a society amongst other human beings! You can't individually change the law to "theft is good" and use your 'law' to justify stealing from me. When I call police on your ass, they will not tell me they cannot arrest you because you unilaterally changed the law to decriminalise theft! You are mixing up individually determined morals with the law here!

The law is not subject to you changing it as you like. But you can individually decide how moral or immoral you wish to be!

Please note the difference!

PrecisionFx:


how did we get the bible?

Direct answer
It fell!
It just fell!
Not from the sky,
Not from the moon,
It just fell!

how did we get the bible?

Alternate answer

Why do we have google?
surf for it yourself or locate your nearest bookshop that sells Christian materials.
if you still don't know contact me.

budaatum:

You don't "pass the law you WISH to live by". Not if you live in a society amongst other human beings! You can't individually change the law to " theft is good" and use you law to justify stealing from me. When I call police on your ass, they will not tell me they cannot arrest you because you unilaterally changed the law to decriminalise theft! You are mixing up individually determined morals with the law here!

The law is not subject to you changing it as you like. But you can individually decide how moral or immoral you wish to be!

Please note the difference!

individual or collectively, the law remains subjective.

that majority determine a particular moral does not make that moral right.

the law is a human construct. the law is the bias of the majority. that the majority have the same bias does not make that bias true.
individual or collectively, it makes no difference. the law is a function of individuals.

one is free to determine his own laws. why should one give in to the bias of the majority?

history is filled with individuals choosing their own right and wrong and challenging the majority. according to the law, anything can be right and anything can be wrong.

if a group of people who want to legalize theft becomes the majority, then theft becomes moral according to the law.

what you call immoral can be what I call moral. all the law does is enforce a particular bias.

I can choose to steal and bully and such and I will consider myself moral. if people like me become the government, we would enforce our bias.

you are the one that seems to be missing the difference.

when I say morality, I don't mean that a person chooses performs a certain act. that is considered moral or immoral.

when I say morality I mean the action itself. what determines the goodness of badness of an action.

Gggg102:

one is free to determine his own laws.

Nobody, I repeat, nobody at all is free to determine their own law! I cannot go to Nigeria and say "homosexuality is now legal"! And the reason why I can't is that "bias of the majority" that you mention.

We hope that that bias will over time become less bias. We hope more objectivity will replace it. We educate people to this end since we now know that less educated people allow bias to determine their laws and more educated people are more objective.

Again, regardless, laws are not individually determined by any single person, for themselves, or for society as a whole, least not since Moses went up a mountain, and definitely not after we kicked out dictators!

Gggg102:


you pass the law you WISH to live by.
if I wish to live by theft, I can create a personal moral compass that makes theft moral.

The "law" and "morality" are not the same thing.

Did you yourself not say this somewhere? Why you now mixing up the two?!

No one can arbitrary pass laws they wish to live by.
Anyone can determine how moral or immoral they wish to be!
But when your morals or immorality hits the lighthouse of the law that opposes it, we both know which would have to swerve!

budaatum:

God, supposedly said homosexuality was immoral. But some countries have gone ahead and decriminalised homosexuality, effectively telling God where to go. It's what we do, as human beings.

Humans did at one time, claim slavery was moral, and then claimed their Gods approved! But humans eventually decided it is immoral. God can bloody well do whatever God likes. We humans wouldn't care. And that is exactly what we do.

Humans are way more enlightened these days and know that we are not made for the law, but make laws for ourselves to live by. And rightly so.

The phrase "objective truth" does not apply except n religious rhetoric, and not many buy that stuff anymore. The beginning of wisdom may be the fear of God, but now we got wisdom, God is dead, as far as some are concerned.

that some countries decriminalized homosexuality does not make it moral from a god stand point. those people are immoral. that's objectivity.

but from a subjective view. that the country made it legal means it is perfectly fine. they made what the WISH to do moral. they can't be condemned as immoral. if I WISH to steal things, I could follow a moral compass where theft is morally acceptable.

in life. morality is subjective.

if A thinks homosexuality is immoral, A thinks anybody that practices homosexuality is immoral. if A practices homosexuality, then A is immoral according to his moral compass.

if A thinks homosexuality is moral, A thinks anybody that practices homosexuality is moral. if A practices homosexuality, then A is moral according to his moral compass.

see how a change in moral compass can move an act from moral to immoral irrespective of if one performs the act or not.

if morality is objective however,

it has been fixed by god that homosexuality is immoral.

if A practices homosexuality, A is immoral.

it is impossible for A to change his moral compass to make homosexuality moral.

A can ignore what god said and tell himself that homosexuality is moral but, that does not make homosexuality moral. god has fixed homosexuality as immoral.


in both cases, one has the freedom to act either way. but in the subjective case, one can manipulate what morality means to suit his WISH, while one can't manipulate what morality means to suit his WISH if morality is objective.

those ignoring the objective truth to create subjective truths are like the flat earthers. their assertion that the earth is flat does not flatten the earth.

man's alteration of objective morality of god does not change the morality of the action.
man's alteration of the subjective morality of man changes the morality of an action.

budaatum:

Nobody, I repeat, nobody at all is free to determine their own law! I cannot go to Nigeria and say "homosexuality is now legal"! And the reason why I can't is that "bias of the majority" that you mention.

We hope that that bias will over time become less bias. We hope more objectivity will replace it. We educate people to this end since we now know that less educated people allow bias to determine their laws and more educated people are more objective.

Again, regardless, laws are not individually determined by any single person, for themselves, or for society as a whole, least not since Moses went up a mountain, and definitely not after we kicked out dictators!

if you become the majority, you make your own law.

bias would remain as far as morality is determined subjectively. for morality to become objective, people would have to agree on a fixed source of morality.

no amount of education would make morality more objective if a fixed source of morality is absent.
if you bring your morality from empathy, I bring my morality from selfishness and another brings his morality from god, objectiveness can never be reached.
there as to be a fixed source .

laws are determined by similar minded single persons.

Gggg102:

it has been fixed by god that homosexuality is immoral.

If only "god" had used the same type of glue that fixes 1+1=2. I'm very certain we wouldn't have had to argue it as much as we have done now would we!

Gggg102:


the person is harmful based on your subjective stand point.
the person may see himself as good.

The person can be harmful base on both objective and subjective morality in the society.

A terrorists is harmful objectively and subjectively to the society, a terrorists think he's morally good subjectively in his opinion or influenced, that's his opinion and the society doesn't pamper or condone a terrorists dangerous activities. If he can picture himself doing the terrorism acts, he will see how dangerous he's to himself and if he does not he's still dangerous.

Majority people doing dangerous acts knows they are morally evil, but because of some personal or subjective reason they became bias, hypocritical or emotionless towards it. Even a villain knows he's Evil.

Like i said Morality is complex, humans are not perfect!

your morality is tied to the society, other people might not tie their morality to the society. the person might not care for the society.

There are people who are apathetic toward some things.

Lol, my morality is not tied to the society, but we're bound to the laws of the society, the law is mostly concern about the negative action or decision expressed publicly in the society, apart of theocratic countries that think thier version of God is the absolute moral, Secular laws don't dictate how you should dress moderately or how you should show kindness.

e. g. vegetarians think killing animals for food is immoral because it harms the animal. meat eaters think killing animals for food is moral because it benefits him. the vegetarian morality considers the animal society while the meat eater morality considers human society alone.
your morality considers human society, other people morality may consider themselves alone.
If morality is objective, only one of them would be right, the other would be wrong. however, morality is subjective so none of them is right and none is wrong.

I think vegetarians are kind of hypocritical, the process of getting electricity, oil, cloths material which they benefit from is as result of killing animals.

Either way, animals are still part of the societal environment, they believe preserving the animals is morally good, anyways it's a positive ideology as long as they are not behaving violence about it.

how would one be worse than the other when the base of judgement is your biased feeling. you feel the terrorist opinion is worse, the terrorist feels his opinion is better. both your judgements are not objective, they are personal opinions.

Are we talking about opinion or action? My premises is more about actions or expression, your opinion is your opinion.

If you're in your room saying I will bomb Lagos bridge, that's your opinion your thoughts, but if you come on social media expressing it then you're a threat to the society, the law doesn't care about your moral position on it.

In Saudi Arabia, if an apostate come out to denounce the Religion, he will be killed even when he's not a threat, now that kinda law lack human values because it's base on ancient laws.

Laws change, empathy evolve so also morality.

you can not prove I'm wrong without there being an objective right or objective wrong.

Yes, that's where facts comes in.

budaatum:

If only "god" had used the same type of glue that fixes 1+1=2. I'm very certain we wouldn't have had to argue it as much as we have done now would we!

god could have fixed it and allowed us the freedom to delude ourselves, storing up the consequences of disobeying his fixed law.

budaatum:

The "law" and "morality" are not the same thing.

Did you yourself not say this somewhere? Why you now mixing up the two?!

No one can arbitrary pass laws they wish to live by.
Anyone can determine how moral or immoral they wish to be!
But when your morals or immorality hits the lighthouse of the law that opposes it, we both know which would have to swerve!

the law can be moral to one and immoral to the other. in a subjective world, which of the two opinion is the truth?


anyone can pass law they want to live by if they had the power.

anyone can determine what is moral or immoral for them.

no-one has to swerve to the law. if you had to swerve to the law, the law would be constant. you won't be able to change the law.