why do you sin/free will

[Fort Fun Indiana]

lol... I wouldn't go that far.

I know. And that makes you goofy. Especially since you definitely do go that far, and simply find justification for your morality in your custom made allegory. When, in reality, your morality chiefly derives from reason, itself based on the knowledge you were "blessed" to have via the genetic accident of where and when you were born.

lol....

If I am the only person around here that understands that ancient Hebrew adults weren't giving their children a bowl of sugar coated turds when they were hungry to learn the hard truth about the greater world around them and how to deal with the wild beasts of the field that the Lord God had also made, (who were always trying to get them to eat slimy baloney sandwiches with bread baked on human dung), then I surely am very blessed, but it was no accident of birth.

Yes,you are wrong, and the ignorant, iron age fools believed literally every word they wrote.

 

[ding]

We "sin" because our hard wired behavior is the product of evolution, while "sins" are a construct of human intelligence. It is no surprise that these two concepts do not perfectly align. We didn't evolve to be pacifists, or to form alliances with competitors, for instance.

So, as per usual, another goofy religious construct is rendered false and obsolete by empirical knowledge.

What religious people have come to think of sin is not what Jesus thought of as sin. What Jesus thought of as sin is what dings thinks of as a religious duty and holy obligation.

If one takes the moral law literally it creates an image of a petty and capricious God with the emotional maturity of a pre pubescent bully.

There is not and never has been any such God ever in existence..

Obviously Jesus found deeper meaning in the same book of the law that has nothing whatever to do with what you wear and what you eat and the sexual preferences of consenting adults, hidden subject that actually reflects wisdom worthy of a holy God..

Funny thing here is that Ding professes to be a sinner, but does not acknowledge that the idolatrous worship of Jesus is a sin but instead is the way to eternal life even though his chosen religious practices fit the definition of idolatry perfectly and is a clear violation of the law of God every way you interpret it.

He must have lost his mind a very long time ago.

To address the thread topic, people who make sinfulness a deliberate choice and continue to sin even after their error is exposed sin because they are cursed, dead , in hell, abandoned by God and on their way to destruction.

at least thats what the bible says.

It's a very sad story.

Try not to speak for me. If you want to know what I believe just ask me.

 

[ding]

If one takes the moral law literally it creates an image of a petty and capricious God with the emotional maturity of a pre pubescent bully.

No doubt! I agree...ignore every word of that nonsense, and get morality via reason.

Which is the kind of morality that leads to abortion, right?

 

[harmonica]

if you believe in total free will, why do you sin??
these priests, of all people, should know not to sin---but they do..why? -- if there is total free will

85% of murders are committed by males
murder is a sin [ yes? ]..85% is too large a number to refute/argue/etc
why do females ''''choose'''' not to commit the sin of murder at the rate that males do??
....some groups of humans commit murder at much higher rates than other groups..why? if there is total free will

Because not everyone embraces the same values.

Some people do not value the lives of others, as we have seen demonstrated in quite bloody ways throughout history.

let's go deeper then
why do some have different values?

 

[Meriweather]

why do some have different values?

One issue might be our different experiences. I have always been adamantly against abortion, not so much because of my faith, but because my little brothers and sisters were always arriving at inconvenient times. Which one would I want to do without? Which one was not worth a bit of hardship?

 

[harmonica]

why do some have different values?

One issue might be our different experiences. I have always been adamantly against abortion, not so much because of my faith, but because my little brothers and sisters were always arriving at inconvenient times. Which one would I want to do without? Which one was not worth a bit of hardship?

so you agree there is not free will/total free will ?

 

[Meriweather]

so you agree there is not free will/total free will ?

Why are you so anxious for me to agree? Doesn't your own opinion stand on its own? Each of us develops our own world view according to what we value. No one made me value my younger siblings. No one controlled my thoughts about them or about the value of life.

Once again, why not just tell us what you believe about free will and the how and why of your own belief. My belief is that our own thoughts ultimately determine our words, our actions, our character, and our destiny. As one of the Proverbs (or Psalms) notes: Our thoughts determine our path.

 

[Hollie]

If one takes the moral law literally it creates an image of a petty and capricious God with the emotional maturity of a pre pubescent bully.

No doubt! I agree...ignore every word of that nonsense, and get morality via reason.

Which is the kind of morality that leads to abortion, right?

No. The kind of morality that allowed the Catholic Church to manage a child abuse syndicate that lasted for decades. And it’s not over yet.

It’s fully expected to read the cheap moralizing from you church groupies.

Most americans understand that Roe vs. Wade is a workable compromise that balances very difficult, competing interests.

Run along now, junior. Your priest has some special games he wants to introduce you to.

 

[ding]

If one takes the moral law literally it creates an image of a petty and capricious God with the emotional maturity of a pre pubescent bully.

No doubt! I agree...ignore every word of that nonsense, and get morality via reason.

Which is the kind of morality that leads to abortion, right?

No. The kind of morality that allowed the Catholic Church to manage a child abuse syndicate that lasted for decades. And it’s not over yet.

It’s fully expected to read the cheap moralizing from you church groupies.

Most americans understand that Roe vs. Wade is a workable compromise that balances very difficult, competing interests.

Run along now, junior. Your priest has some special games he wants to introduce you to.

Read the John Jay report and then we can discuss this.

 

[Hollie]

If one takes the moral law literally it creates an image of a petty and capricious God with the emotional maturity of a pre pubescent bully.

No doubt! I agree...ignore every word of that nonsense, and get morality via reason.

Which is the kind of morality that leads to abortion, right?

No. The kind of morality that allowed the Catholic Church to manage a child abuse syndicate that lasted for decades. And it’s not over yet.

It’s fully expected to read the cheap moralizing from you church groupies.

Most americans understand that Roe vs. Wade is a workable compromise that balances very difficult, competing interests.

Run along now, junior. Your priest has some special games he wants to introduce you to.

Read the John Jay report and then we can discuss this.

Read the law so you might have a clue.

 

[ding]

If one takes the moral law literally it creates an image of a petty and capricious God with the emotional maturity of a pre pubescent bully.

No doubt! I agree...ignore every word of that nonsense, and get morality via reason.

Which is the kind of morality that leads to abortion, right?

No. The kind of morality that allowed the Catholic Church to manage a child abuse syndicate that lasted for decades. And it’s not over yet.

It’s fully expected to read the cheap moralizing from you church groupies.

Most americans understand that Roe vs. Wade is a workable compromise that balances very difficult, competing interests.

Run along now, junior. Your priest has some special games he wants to introduce you to.

Read the John Jay report and then we can discuss this.

Read the law so you might have a clue.

I do have a clue. There were approximately 300 predators. They are all in jail.

Read the John Jay report.

 

[ding]

If one takes the moral law literally it creates an image of a petty and capricious God with the emotional maturity of a pre pubescent bully.

No doubt! I agree...ignore every word of that nonsense, and get morality via reason.

Man believes in a universal right and wrong.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[Hollie]

No doubt! I agree...ignore every word of that nonsense, and get morality via reason.

Which is the kind of morality that leads to abortion, right?

No. The kind of morality that allowed the Catholic Church to manage a child abuse syndicate that lasted for decades. And it’s not over yet.

It’s fully expected to read the cheap moralizing from you church groupies.

Most americans understand that Roe vs. Wade is a workable compromise that balances very difficult, competing interests.

Run along now, junior. Your priest has some special games he wants to introduce you to.

Read the John Jay report and then we can discuss this.

Read the law so you might have a clue.

I do have a clue. There were approximately 300 predators. They are all in jail.

Read the John Jay report.

You should read the report. I can understand you will want to defend the church over its decades of running the child abuse ring but that doesn’t minimize the damage.

 

[Hollie]

If one takes the moral law literally it creates an image of a petty and capricious God with the emotional maturity of a pre pubescent bully.

No doubt! I agree...ignore every word of that nonsense, and get morality via reason.

Man believes in a universal right and wrong.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Wow. Long cut and paste lectures on morality from an apologist for the Catholic Church child abuse syndicate.

Universal code of common decency? Your Catholic priests missed the email.

 

[ding]

Which is the kind of morality that leads to abortion, right?

No. The kind of morality that allowed the Catholic Church to manage a child abuse syndicate that lasted for decades. And it’s not over yet.

It’s fully expected to read the cheap moralizing from you church groupies.

Most americans understand that Roe vs. Wade is a workable compromise that balances very difficult, competing interests.

Run along now, junior. Your priest has some special games he wants to introduce you to.

Read the John Jay report and then we can discuss this.

Read the law so you might have a clue.

I do have a clue. There were approximately 300 predators. They are all in jail.

Read the John Jay report.

You should read the report. I can understand you will want to defend the church over its decades of running the child abuse ring but that doesn’t minimize the damage.

I'm not defending the church at all. Just correcting your errors is all.

But hey, what we were discussing were morals. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

 

[ding]

If one takes the moral law literally it creates an image of a petty and capricious God with the emotional maturity of a pre pubescent bully.

No doubt! I agree...ignore every word of that nonsense, and get morality via reason.

Man believes in a universal right and wrong.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Wow. Long cut and paste lectures on morality from an apologist for the Catholic Church child abuse syndicate.

Universal code of common decency? Your Catholic priests missed the email.

Try staying on subject, Hollie.

 

[Hollie]

No. The kind of morality that allowed the Catholic Church to manage a child abuse syndicate that lasted for decades. And it’s not over yet.

It’s fully expected to read the cheap moralizing from you church groupies.

Most americans understand that Roe vs. Wade is a workable compromise that balances very difficult, competing interests.

Run along now, junior. Your priest has some special games he wants to introduce you to.

Read the John Jay report and then we can discuss this.

Read the law so you might have a clue.

I do have a clue. There were approximately 300 predators. They are all in jail.

Read the John Jay report.

You should read the report. I can understand you will want to defend the church over its decades of running the child abuse ring but that doesn’t minimize the damage.

I'm not defending the church at all. Just correcting your errors is all.

But hey, what we were discussing were morals. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

What errors? There is nothing erroneous about decades of sexual abuse of children known to the Catholic Church and they did virtually nothing to stop it.

If there was an error, it was on the part of the Catholic Church which protected the criminal clergy.

 

[Hollie]

If one takes the moral law literally it creates an image of a petty and capricious God with the emotional maturity of a pre pubescent bully.

No doubt! I agree...ignore every word of that nonsense, and get morality via reason.

Man believes in a universal right and wrong.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Wow. Long cut and paste lectures on morality from an apologist for the Catholic Church child abuse syndicate.

Universal code of common decency? Your Catholic priests missed the email.

Try staying on subject, Hollie.

View attachment 238128

Try to avoid spamming the thread with your cut and paste spam.

 

[ding]

Hollie mad.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie mad.

No. Just acknowledging your tactics of diversion and deflection when you’re hoping to sidestep harsh realities,