Morality Dicohtomomania - The Best Online Debate Website | - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website |

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.

The best online Debate website -! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Morality Dicohtomomania
in Philosophy

By ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1441 Pts edited December 2019
I remember some time ago, briefly watching a critical thinking lecture about critical thinking which can be found here: Anyway, during the lecture one of the audiences asked something about subjectivity and objectivity. The Lecturer who is also a philosophy teacher responded by saying she usually didn't like talking about things in regards to subjective and objectives until students were at least in the second or third year of their course. She then said that people can be subjective about objective things and they can also be objective about subjective things; I hadn't really thought about this that much before but I thought this response from her was brilliant. So, what has this got to do with morality? Well, read on.

There was a time when I thought that it was a good argument that the only way objective morality can exist is with God. Then later I thought objective morality can't exist even with a God either. Now, I understand that to think of morality in terms of either objective or subjective is a reflection of dichotomous thinking; it can be both. To make a generalization let's just say that you and I do some kind of action that is completely different than one another. Now, I may think what I am doing is moral, and what you're doing is immoral and this is completely subjective. However, one of our actions will lead to a greater objective moral good; we just don't know with complete certainty which, and that is the objective part of morality.

Moreover, I think we need to be more specific in what we're describing when referencing morality. What I think most people are talking about when they mention morality revolves around what is right or wrong. Now, for some people what is right for them is wrong for others. We can also go further and talk about morality in terms of doing no harm. And hey, we can even go back even further than that and say “Do to others as thou wouldst they should do to thee, and do to none other but as thou wouldst be done to” (Among the earliest appearances in English is Earl Rivers' translation of a saying of Socrates (Dictes and Sayenges of the Philosophers, 1477, )). In short, morality is being defined here as the desire to want no harm to come to oneself and the desire to do no harm to others as well as the promotion of human wellbeing of oneself and others, and for humanity in general. And thus, there are just some things that are wrong for all of us. For example, I am sure we can all agree unless you have some mental dysfunction that cutting the legs of your kids is not the right way to raise them to be functional adults. Furthermore, I think it's important to note that emotions such as disgust are not good tools for moral wisdom. Our emotions can sometimes act without our reasoning.

I think it also needs to be mentioned that objectivity here is being defined as a position impartial, reasonable, unbiased, without prejudice, etc. And note that I am not talking about absolute morality which is something I think some people tend to conflate with objective morality. I actually think the idea of moral absolutism is absurd whether it denotes an idea of Theism or lack thereof.

Furthermore, morality isn't exactly all objective with Theism where a Theistic God is the authority on Morality either. An individual's idea of God is subjective and therefore in that particular sense this idea of morality based on God is also subjective. With that being said, if there was a God that exists God would be the authority on objective morality although his idea of morality would still be subjective as it is his own individual idea of morality.

So in summary, morality isn't either completely objective or completely subjective. It is more likely a complex mixture of subjectivity and objectivity entwined with one another.

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +


  • You can bypass the entire concept of morality just by having a single well defined goal, and doing everything within your power to maximize the quotient of success for that goal.

    Just having a goal that involves human well being and making sure no harm comes to oneself and others, while doing everything to accomplish this goal would be equivalent to having a morality that changes depending on the situation.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • While it is true that there are some moral values that are likely required for civilisation to exist, I believe that their scope is much smaller than most people think. For example, you mentioned that cutting legs of one's kids is shared by everyone - but I beg to differ. In China, up until around two centuries ago, one of the beauty standards was a very peculiar form of feet, one that does not arise naturally humans. The practice of "foot binding" was very widespread, and it often applied to little kids, whose legs were bound by certain tools against their consent. Almost everyone who has undergone such practice would become effectively disabled by the age of 25-30, yet parents believed it worth it for cultural reasons.
    There are other examples that people would not think about. Killing your own kids is always wrong? Say hi to Spartans. Murder is wrong? Well, there are still countless cultures out there in which blood revenge is considered moral. Treat others how you want to be treated? Not something national-socialists professed.

    There are some moral stances shared almost universally and possibly necessary for any society to exist. For example, arbitrary mass murder is going to be considered very wrong in any society, because it threatens its very structure.
    However, even such moral stances are still not objective. Subjective views can be held by the overwhelming majority of the population, or even unanimously - but it still does not make them objective. Morals by their very nature are subjective, as they refer to assessment of actions, rather than their raw description - and any assessment is inherently subjective.

    My personal morality is based on one single postulate: "Humans thrive the most when they are happy and free". Everything else is derived from this. You can ask, "Well, what if someone finds happiness and freedom from exploding hydrogen bombs above downtowns of major cities?" Then this is what is moral for them. And it is moral for us to try to stop them.
    Morals do not have to be devoid of interpersonal conflicts. There can be morals which cannot be satisfied at the same time for multiple individuals. However, one of the observations I make consistently in life is that, in general, the more you respect others' morals, the more they respect yours; moral actions are reciprocal in this regard. So, even though my moral system in itself does not necessarily suggest treating other people well, I do think that this is the most practical way to live one's life.

    Would a society be possible which is based on my moral system? I do not know. My moral system has not been tuned to be adaptable to large groups of people. It is more tuned to non-conformist individuals within a largely conformist society; we thrive under this ideology, which allows us to enjoy the stability of the general moral system, while also cherishing the perks of our own morals allowing us to get the most out of life, more than most other people ever can.

    As such, I would like to propose a distinction between individual morals and collective morals. These do not have to be similar to each other, and they do not have to be mutually exclusive. A person can hold individual and collective morals simultaneously, applying them to their lives in various proportions depending on the situation.
  • @Happy_Killbot

    Morality is more than just a concept... The basic drive is a biological one, it's the gregarious instinct characteristic to mammals with cortexes. The larger the cortex, the more complex the morality will be. Wolves, elephants, dolphins, etc all have their own ethical drive, there are social behaviors that will be encouraged because they promote survival and others that will be punished because detrimental to the pack, herd, etc, this happens instinctively in gregarious mammal groups, morality is an evolutionary advantage... 

    It took eons for us to get where we humans are now, our capacity to conceptualize abstractions, the acquisition of language, etc, just opened other ways through which this genetic drive expresses itself, in a sense we are figuratively the conscious part of Nature trying to understand itself and we're still in early infancy here...

    @ZeusAres42 ;

    You made good points with which I agree... I would say that the framework or context in which one expresses his/her morality determines the objectivity of it.. I mean, what gives objectivity to a morally charged action is the context in which this action is performed. It relates to @Happy_killbot comments, the goal would be the framework/context within which one can evaluate the morality of an action.

    If we take Sam Harris moral landscape, the framework is the flourishing and well-being of sentient beings, withing this framework morality is definitely objective, within this context some actions will be detrimental and other beneficial, objectively so... Now some would say that deciding which framework we should use is an unacceptable subjective choice, I would agree but only to a point... Even if a choice is subjective, it doesn't entail that the choice is also irrational... Choosing Sam Harris's framework is undeniably a rational choice, as subjective as it may be...

    Let's hope this post won't degenerate, it's an interesting one!
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • kakalam777kakalam777 55 Pts
    edited November 2019
    Looks like you finally understood that morality can't be either objective or subjective but should be hinged on an action of harm.
    This has been the case since 4000 yrs...the concept of Ahimsa.

    Its a good article....I hope you spread it more...many people don't know this. 
  • @ZeusAres42 @Dee The Law - Objective Morality is infused within our inner-man, our spirit, at conception. Allow me to explain via notes/article I wrote subsequent to Atheist v. Christian debated on morality.

    Objective Morality: Darwin v. Jesus Christ-Yeshua

    Objective Morality – Darwin v. Creator, Yeshua-Jesus Christ (Comparison-Contrast)

    Much discussion as of late among the atheist persuasion concerning the origin of objective morality; Mankind is confronted with two-options for consideration,

    1) Darwin’s premise of evolving genomic intricacy and causal deterministic morality.

    2) The infusion of objective morality in the inner-man (spirit) at conception by our Creator, Jesus Christ-Yeshua.

    Part 1

    Darwin’s Premise

    Evolutionary Theory, a most potent progenitor of Atheism, suggests that the yet undefined beginnings of DNA-Life (abiogenesis/descent with modification-common ancestor) methodically evolved through increasing genomic intricacy via mutation and over millions-or-billions-of-years a creature possessing physiological – psychological sentientism manifest displaying emotion, wisdom, discernment, equating to self-awareness while pursuing a causal deterministic morality.

    Competition for survival among these superior sentient beings created dissension; the struggle for sustenance (survival of the fittest) manifest in destructive behaviors that threatened survival of the species; therefore, a basic understanding of morality mandating behaviors that profited the entirety of the group evolved by trial and error (survival of the most moral); hence, the naturalistic foundation of Natural Law setting forth restrictions on behaviors that warred against the sustainability, general welfare, of the group/a society.

    The primordial fly-in-the-ointment for naturalistic origin of morality is the predisposition of mankind to relativize morality as a result of an innate sense of selfishness, lust, greed, accompanied by a desire for dominance under girded by narcissistic pride/arrogance. By what mechanism can the inner-being/behavior of Nature’s most intelligent beings be controlled so that life can attain some measure of meaning and purpose in conjunction with sustainability?

    Unfortunately, negative reinforcement does not provide lasting deterrence and a society governed solely by self-determinism, moral relativism, suffers moral decay/moral rot and many have ceased to exist for this reason; therefore, Darwin’s naturalistic approach to morality does not provide a form of objective morality that is conducive to sustainability of the human species over time.

    Darwin’s failures

    1) Darwin’s premise fails to explain why self-destructive behaviors are manifest in a sentient being that is, according to Evolutionary Theory, evolving into a creature of ever-increasing complexity and physiological-psychological-moral perfection.

    2) Darwin’s premise fails to provide an achievable, practical, applicable, deterrence to self-destructive behavior in the human species; behaviors manifesting in immoral, unnatural, conduct that negates procreation, sustainability of the species through same-sex attraction and same-sex intercourse; Darwin’s premise ultimately manifests in the destruction of the Biblical family unit – the bedrock of societal sustainability.

    3) Darwin’s naturalistic perspective concerning objective morality fails to address the perplexing problem of “diminishing returns” relevant to the lust of the flesh, the pursuit of sensuality, that can never attain a plateau of consistent-lasting satisfaction/contentment but inevitably mandates ever-increasing forms of sexual debauchery in the realm of sexual immorality or ever-increasing amounts of substance abuse to placate an insatiable fleshly appetite for pleasure and sensuality. The inevitable resultant of naturalistic moral “diminishing returns” is physiological-psychological addiction/dependence and far too often, death of the body.

    Part 2

    God’s Objective Morality as defined in “The Beginning”

    God the Holy Spirit articulates, in various parts of His written Covenant with mankind (the Scriptures), that objective morality is written upon the heart of mankind at conception as it was in the creation of Adam, the first man.

    It is written…

    “…in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,” Romans 2:15 (NASB)

    Evidence relevant to infused morality?

    The evidence of God’s infused morality within mankind is demonstrated by the thoughts and actions of the first man and first woman immediately subsequent to their rebellion to our Creator’s edict prohibiting compromise with evil.

    In the following Scripture, note the manifestation of fear, shame, deceit, obfuscation, all defining and substantiating the presence of objective morality in both Adam and Eve.

    “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. [shame]

    They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. [fear; shame] Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.” [fear; shame] And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” [obfuscation; pride; denial of culpability] Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” [pride; obfuscation; denial of culpability]

    Why has God infused morality within mankind?

    Apparently, our Creator has at least two-primary reasons for infusing morality into the inner-man of Human KIND.

    1) Protection of Human Kind through objective moral standards ensuring the sustainability of the species by thwarting destructive behaviors.

    2) Objective morality infused at conception is necessary for judgment in Eternity to manifest with equity and due process.

    The atheist will be quick to point out that “religion” is not a source of morality and that man can pursue morality apart from religion or a god. The atheist will also point to the Holy Bible and scoff at the concept of the Scriptures as a guide to morality. I partially agree with the atheist relevant to this premise.

    The Holy Bible is NOT simply a Book of morality and the Holy Spirit did not construct same with such a singular purpose in mind. The Holy Bible is also a written Covenant of Grace between God and mankind as established by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and said Covenant is sealed/guaranteed by the indwelling Holy Spirit of Promise (Ephesians 1:13). Morality cannot be internalized via a book. Basic objective morality is infused into the inner-man (spirit) of every human being at conception by God.

    For clarification, the Bible does articulate moral objectives, standards and behaviors that God defines as acceptable and unacceptable but it is only through the power and guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit that mankind finds the strength and wisdom to actually live a life that is morally and ethically pleasing to God (Galatians 5:16; Psalm 119:9-16).

    Mankind is without excuse

    From the most remote Aborigine to the urbanized city-dweller in America, if neither read a single Scripture from the Holy Bible in their lifetime, they are both equally culpable for iniquity/sin/disobedience before our Holy and Just Creator in this life constrained by Time and at Judgment in Eternity. That culpability manifests equally throughout God’s human creation beginning with The Genesis concerning the first-man, Adam, because our Creator has infused His objective moral law into our inner-man; therefore, we are all culpable before God irrespective of our education, our socialization, our beliefs, our loyalties.

    The only exemptions from culpability for sin are granted to children who have not attained an age of reason/accountability sufficient to discern good from evil, moral from immorality and the mentally handicap individual incapable of moral judgment (Matthew 19:14). Without conscious awareness of God’s moral law written upon our heart, there is no sin; therefore, children and the mentally handicapped are secure in God’s righteousness, fairness, justice and compassion (Romans 4:15; Romans 5:12-14).

    As an aside, understand that every man and woman having attained an age of reason is aware of God’s moral law and they are also aware of God’s reality and His validity in both Time and Eternity; therefore, if anyone rejects God’s authority and His reality they will be “without excuse” at their Judgment in Eternity (Romans 1:18-32).

    “Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.” Ecclesiastes 7:20

    “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Romans 3:23 (NASB)

    As a result of our first Earthly father, Adam, and his rebellion to – rejection of God’s Covenant of provision and sustenance, all of mankind has inherited a sin-nature through Adam’s seed and we are all therefore guilty before God in accordance with His standard of perfection as written upon our heart via the objective-divine-natural moral law.

    If not for the restraining power of the Holy Spirit over this fallen-World and mankind’s sinful-nature, mankind would implode in self-destructive behavior much like the generation of Noah (Genesis 6:5-8).

    “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:22 (NASB)

    “For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.” 2 Thessalonians 2:7 (NASB)

    Conclusion: Comparison-Contrast

    Darwin’s naturalistic perspective relevant to objective morality has proven itself to be wholly inadequate as a restrainer of destructive behaviors as well as a contradiction to the theory of evolution. Darwin offers zero-answers and zero-solutions to self-destructive immorality and the ever-present problem of “diminishing returns” concerning the addictive nature of sensuality/lust/the pursuit of pleasure.

    The Holy Spirit of God, Who was present at Creation, demonstrates that God the Father infuses the natural law, objective morality within the inner-man (spirit of man) so that Judgment in Eternity will manifest in equity with due process. We see that God has also infused objective morality into the inner-man as a bulwark thwarting destructive behaviors that would otherwise negate the sustainability of Human KIND.

    God the Father has also outlined a Covenant by which He provides mankind a pathway leading to obedience to the moral law by grace through faith in Jesus Christ; a Covenant of the New Birth that constrains the sin-nature of mankind through the process of Sanctification; Sanctification being a process whereby the inner-man is incrementally transformed into a new-man/new-woman through the guidance and strength of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

    It is the indwelling Holy Spirit received upon one’s faith/belief in Jesus Christ as Lord that teaches the redeemed individual that pursuit of Worldly lust/immorality is futile while the Sanctification process initiated by faith in Christ ultimately leads to Divine “contentment” which leads to Divine “joy” which culminates in everlasting “peace.”

    When Divine contentment controls the inner-man, the fallen-nature, though it remains a formidable foe, is tempered and controllable through obedience to the Holy Spirit and it is through the Holy Spirit that the “Fruits of the Spirit” are manifest in one’s life.

    “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” Galatians 5:22-23 (NASB)

    As for me and my household, we will trust in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as our Moral Authority and Law Giver while rejecting Darwin’s failures as deceptive and impotent thereby culminating in death of the body in sin and death of the body and soul in Hell in futility (Revelation 20:11-15; Matthew 10:28).

    “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” Colossians 2:8 (NASB)

    There is much more to be said concerning the issuance of God’s Ten-Commandments and the 613-Levitical Laws given to the Children of Israel as well as the issuance of Jesus’ Two-Greatest Commandments and their purpose relevant to the objective moral law written upon our heart and the working of the Holy Spirit in the dispensation of The Law v. the dispensation of Grace; unfortunately, this FB format and mandated brevity prevents such a discussion.

  • kakalam777kakalam777 55 Pts
    edited November 2019
    Sorry but Torah, Bible, Dasatir and Upanishads all has same morality compass, which is neither subjective nor objective and hinges on action of harm...the compass flips where wrong action becomes right when a community is under corrupt rule and also becoming corrupted and straightens back when it is not.
    That is the whole reason why Jews were commanded to fight with army of Jerusalem with Moses, because the entire city was controlled by corrupt rule, but they denied and were stranded for 40 years, ignoring corrupt rule until Saul became king, and you know the rest.

    It has nothing to do with Jesus, the control of morality has always been given to humans. Its all about how we use it.
  • @kakalam777 ; Without our Creator, there would be no morality. The only subjective morality is that which is manifest from the wickedness of man who rejects God's morality i.e. moral relativism; this is the root of Atheism that flows from instruction in Darwinism. You're free to believe whatever you desire but without the God of Morality, Jesus Christ, as your Lord, you live and die without hope.
  • ZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @kakalam777
    Don't get me wrong, I am not denying anything about the origin of morality from God, the problem is that the concept was always in hands of people to teach others what their morality compass should hinge upon, which priests, sheikhs, pandits or parents don't do....they only say that it is divine command, but never explain why it is a divine command, which they themselves don't know, and this stems into doubts about God.This is the main reason. 

    God only commanded a standard of right and wrong, and gave the steering of morality to humans, it is our job to navigate it up and progress the society.
    You see in Holy books there are commands like,
    Don't kill humans...but next page there is a war and people kill. Never tells why...
    do priest explain why, NO.....they just say its God's command. Why would God command without a reason, you should know that God being who He is has no obligations to give reasons to his creation. Its human's job to figure that out. Reason God commands war: because absolute power in humans hand corrupts absolutely, and ignoring corruption is sin, so look for what the corruption is because it does more harm than good.

    There are commands of don't commit adultery, but does holy books tell why...NO...they never tell that, it is a cause of breakage of families and abandonment of many children who need support of both parents, and might cause emotional/financial harm.

    Holy books says don't eat pig/pork...but never says why. This is not just for Jews, Christians, even older religions used to avoid pork. 
    Look web and it will say because of its dirty look [which is wrong], the real reason is the filth they eat are toxic and are absorbed in its flesh. Toxic things can harm yourself hence not allowed. 

    These are all objective commands with no reason explained, Obey the God's command but also be inquisitive about its reasons to certain extent, because someone might not like doing it just because you say its God's command. They need to know the motive behind it.
    "Anything that does more harm to you or others is a sin"

    God already gave us control over moral compass, so everything is our job to figure it out. Why do you need God to spoon feed you everything? you are given intellect for a reason, to use and to choose what should be right and wrong.

    There is a verses in Quran that says:
     "Indeed, the vilest of living animals, in God's sight, are the deaf, the dumb and those that do not use their intellect."
    "Or do you think that most of them listen or use their intellect? They are only like cattle, nay, they are more astray from the way"

    So, listening then blind following is not a moral thing to do according to God as it will make you think wrong is right which does more harm...I think it is more clear in Torah where the reason was given why God is God to them more explicitly and why they should not worship other gods. Read 10 commandment. So they never ask why they should and shouldn't do this or that as every command in Torah is followed by "For I am Your God".

    As for atheism, you don't make distinction and dehumanise them just because of their denial of existence of God. As long as they are helping in reduction of corruption and helping in social progression of society they are doing their part as humans properly. Relationship of a person and God is personal, so external pressure will only force them away. Have a civil dialogue and come to common ground, you are allowed to have differences in opinions and disagreements and learn from each other. That is more beneficial. 
  • DeeDee 2169 Pts

    ******From the most remote Aborigine to the urbanized city-dweller in America, if neither read a single Scripture from the Holy Bible in their lifetime, they are both equally culpable for iniquity/sin/disobedience 

    Indeed ........

    When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

  • DeeDee 2169 Pts
    edited November 2019

    ******I think it also needs to be mentioned that objectivity here is being defined as a position impartial, reasonable, unbiased, without prejudice, etc. And note that I am not talking about absolute morality which is something I think some people tend to conflate with objective morality. I actually think the idea of moral absolutism is absurd whether it denotes an idea of Theism or lack thereof. 

    Spot on that’s the problem the definition of objectivity when it comes to morality i would totally agree with your definition of such 
  • @Dee ; Yes, discipline in the home is essential for success of the family. You incessantly cite the Covenant of Law without knowledge and in hatred for God not knowing that the Covenant of Law is not your judge but the Covenant of Grace through Jesus Christ will testify against you at your Judgment in Eternity. Unless you repent of your sin and sincerely believe in your heart that Jesus Christ died for you to pay your sin-debt, you will not see life in God's Kingdom.

  • DeeDee 2169 Pts

    Ahhh , good old biblical morality......

  • @Dee You are repeating yourself and citing the Covenant of Law which you have no knowledge of.  As the men were judged for mocking the Prophet of God, you will be judged for mocking the suffering of Jesus Christ lest you repent.

    First of all, this was no minor offense, for these young men held God’s prophet in contempt. Since the prophet was God’s mouthpiece to His people, God Himself was being most wickedly insulted in the person of His prophet.

    Second, these were not small, innocent children. They were wicked young men, comparable to a modern street gang. Hence, the life of the prophet was endangered by their number, the nature of their sin, and their obvious disrespect for authority.

    Third, Elisha’s action was designed to strike fear in the hearts of any other such gang members. If these young gang members were not afraid to mock a venerable man of God such as Elisha, then they would have been a threat to the lives of all God’s people.

    Fourth, some commentators note that their statements were designed to challenge Elisha’s claim to be a prophet. They were essentially saying, “If you are a man of God, why don’t you go on up to heaven like Elijah did?” The term “baldhead” might be a reference to the fact that lepers shaved their heads. Such a comment would indicate that these young men looked upon Elisha as a detestable outcast.

    Fifth, it was not Elijah who took their lives, but God who alone could have providentially directed the bears to attack them. It is evident that by mocking this man of God, these young men were revealing their true attitudes toward God Himself. Such contempt for the Lord was punishable by death. The Scriptures do not say that Elisha prayed for this kind of punishment. It was clearly an act of God in judgment upon this impious gang.

  • DeeDee 2169 Pts
  • @Dee ; The judgment upon the homosexual, the lesbian, occurs in both Time and in Eternity as they receive the recompense for their infidelity to God by shame, self-loathing, addiction, disease, self-mutilation, suicide, and in Eternity by being rejected from life in the Kingdom of God because they sought to spit in God's face and live contrary to His Covenant of Marriage as established in The Genesis of Time; because they refused to repent of their iniquity and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord for the mediation of their sin.

  • DeeDee 2169 Pts

    What a pile of horse manure .......You’re dismissed
  • @Dee ; You have dismissed yourself in your servitude to Satan as your spiritual father in Time; this is why you are headed to an Eternity where you will suffer a similar fate as Satan in Hell lest you repent of your sin and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord (John 8:24). Please, don't die in your sin!  Gentiles = Unbeliever i.e. Atheists...

  • DeeDee 2169 Pts
  • @Dee ; Jesus Christ's blood atones for all sin, even your blasphemy. If anyone will repent and turn to Jesus Christ and believe in Him as Lord for the remission of sin, they will be saved and find new life in Time and Eternal life in the Spirit.
  • DeeDee 2169 Pts
  • @Dee ;
    We don't know the skin color of Adam and Eve and the races find their origin subsequent to the Babel Dispersion.
  • DeeDee 2169 Pts

    More BS , you’re a funny little fu—ker 

  • Your own subjective idea of God is a reflection of your morality. It does not matter whether you're basing your idea of Morality on Divine Command Theory or God's nature; your whole idea of God and morality is still based on your own subjective sense of how you see God or morality. And there's nothing you can ever do about that!

  • @RickeyD

    So they still explain it with evolution, just in a bloated way, where the word "god" is inserted in between each two passages? Figures.

    When nobody can explain something, they refer to god. And when they cannot explain something with god, but can with science, then they refer to science, but give credit to god.

    Why not just accept science and move on? Nothing prevents you from saying that the god created humans, and humans then evolved. Only your pride does, and pride, as far as I know, is considered a sin in Christianity.
  • @MayCaesar ; Evolution explains nothing...Evolution is a lie from Hell. The only Truth you'll find in this life concerning origin, meaning, morality, destiny, exists between The Genesis and The Revelation in God's word...
  • @RickeyD

    Ah, okay... So everything your favored holy books say is the truth, and everything everyone else says is a lie. That is another convenient way to avoid having to face facts.

    I am not sure how serious you are in all these posts; I get the feeling that you are playing a character on purpose. If you truly have these views, then all I can say is, "Wow".
  • @MayCaesar ; My Lord's words are Truth and they are life and you will not find true life in Time or in Eternity in any other place but in the written word of God i.e. the Scriptures and the Living Word of God i.e. Jesus Christ (John 1).
  • So why do philosophers say Morality should be either objective or subjective only, when it can be both?
  • DeeDee 2169 Pts

    Why don’t you ask them?
  • @ZeusAres42
    Looks like you finally understood that morality can't be either objective or subjective but should be hinged on an action of harm.
    This has been the case since 4000 yrs...the concept of Ahimsa.

    Its a good article....I hope you spread it more...many people don't know this. 
    Well, I had been contemplating this idea for a while now. Perhaps I just wasn't really conveying my messages across very well in other posts. The only thing I am in doubt about what you're saying though is this being a concept going back only 4000 yrs. However, as humans evolved over time with more intelligence I guess they realized more about the concept of harm.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch