>be faceless void >mfw I have no face
Morality is a requirement of civilization, but the presence of a moral code does not guarantee civilization will emerge.
Hrm, after googling, it appears nowadays "civilization" means technological advancement, rather than being civil to one another, or moral. I'm more used to using it as being near enough synonymous with moral.
I'll also point out that in small tribes or towns where everyone knows each other, there is much less crime or 'immoral behaviour', because the consequences of such mean punishment or exclusion to the town, often to the individuals detriment: the short term gain of stealing someone else's property doesn't match up with the medium-long term punishment. I'm sure that the maoris had their own moral codes within each tribe, it was the inter-tribal warfare that you find morally repugnant. But just imagine if there weren't any other tribes to go to war with: the isolated tribe would still be just as moral as they were, but not guaranteed to progress any further in terms of civilization.
Citation needed.
Bible quotes are not valid sources.
I'm not even going to bother with you then, if you call yourself a Christian and don'tDSFSDFSXDFSDF i can't even.
I want historical evidence that Christian cultures are more "moral' (less violent, less crime, etc) than non-Christian cultures.
And Militant Buddhism is inherently a paradox. There are no militant Buddhists, there are militants who call themselves Buddhists incorrectly.
NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY YES I GET TO USE IT AGAINST SOMEONE AHAHAHAHA
Bible quotes are not valid sources. I want historical evidence that Christian cultures are more "moral' (less violent, less crime, etc) than non-Christian cultures.
The 'morality' of any culture changes over time, too. For example, the crusades were not a particularly high point in christian moral history.
Jack's reply is likely to be to say that they weren't "true christians" because they aren't the same as his kooky little sect that understands the bible because it's so "easy" to understand.
They weren't true Christians. :3
Your idea of God is...small.
Do you have a way to measure His size or power? Or do you measure with a ruler called "faith?"
Yeah, I use infinity to measure His size and power.
People wouldn't even question [that theft is good]; the idea that it is bad would probably not even cross their minds, because in such a universe that God defines theft as good, it IS GOOD.
If God defined slavery as good, as He did according to the Bible:
Quote from Leviticus 25:44-46
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.
Why do people today believe that slavery is wrong? God says that slavery is right, no one should question it. The problem with divine right theory is that God may command his followers to do something that seems wrong to our consciouses. In that case, we begin to question God.
Slavery's good. If done in the correct Christian Biblical way. The reason people nowadays believe that slavery is wrong is out of a backlash against the terrible treatment of slaves in America, particularly African and Scottish slaves who were stolen from their country and forced to work in the plantations of America. In an attempt to be politically correct, they refuse to allow even the slightest accusation of slavery. However, for example, imprisoning someone in a jail is a form of slavery.
To say "oh I think theft is bad" when God has said it's good is to thumb your nose at the game developer and say "I'm going to take this mask off, and nothing will happen!" And then you take the mask off and die.
The difference between the game and real life is that good and bad were not clearly defined in the tutorial.
1 And God spoke all these words:
2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
Exodus 20:1-17
I'd say that's a pretty clear tutorial.
There can't be anything greater than God in this universe because a) omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and b) He created the universe, and is greater than the universe.
Proof? If I was an Aztec, I'd say a non-omnipotent god created the universe. I would have as much proof as you.As I previously said, I'm assuming that the Abrahamic, Judeo-Christian God is real, as per defined in the Bible.
However, it is also clear that as a society is further away from being Christian, its upholding of ingrained morals degenerates. Consciences become weaker, to put it simply.
So, Hammurabi's code was immoral? Ashoka's laws were immoral? Christianity wasn't around, so they couldn't have been Christian. For all we know, God could have inspired those moral codes as well.It is not that they were entirely immoral, but rather that they were not perfect moral codes, and that the people in those countries degenerated from the level of morality that is in a Christian country.
In addition, the Maori culture of New Zealand ...
We're all a bit ethno-centric, but you don't have to keep glorifying your race or religion (paraphrased: "New Zealand became better when white Christians arrived."). I could say that America's GDP has grown so much over the past few decades because of Asian immigrants. Just because people follow (or claim to follow) a certain set of laws or beliefs does not make them automatically better people.Le facepalm. I'm not a racist, if that's what you're trying to say. I don't care if you're black white asian, to me, the only distinction worth knowing about is whether you're Christian, or non-Christian. Nowadays there are Korean missionaries coming to New Zealand to convert the white people here. I used the Maori example because it's the one I'm most familiar with.
Christian missionaries in New Spain "civilized" natives that committed immoral acts, such as not wearing enough clothes in the hot, dry deserts. Some Native Americans were rounded up and placed in missions, others were essentially enslaved and sent to work in the silver mines and haciendas of New Spain. I know you're going to say that Catholics aren't Christians. Other Christians can enslave people, and that's moral in the Judeo-Christian God's eyes.
The Catholic Church is not a true Christian church. And the people in New Spain who imprisoned, killed, enslaved etc. the native people were committing non-Christian acts, even if they did come from my "kooky little sect", and as such their acts should be looked on as sin.
Those who are not Christian are not righteous, don't seek after God, they don't do good, etc.
I would disagree. Gandhi was not Christian, yet he was a great pacifist that helped a lot of people.But he didn't seek after God, he wasn't righteous. He may have done some good in his life; most people do. That's not enough for God though.
People won't starve because people will care for each other more.
We could be a community of moral people during a drought, but there's still not enough to eat. Morality does not ensure success.Rather, you wouldn't have one person eating extremely well and ten people outside his house starving. If we starve, we all starve. Assuming morality.
Red classic.
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."