Search results

fair assessment

Why is there a subtle hint that America and Christian ideals are linked. Christianity creates Christians, not Americans. Also, let's not forget that the early church was a communal (yes communist society), (see Acts 2).

It depends............... The notion that black lives are taken for granted and not valued as much as the lives of other Americans by law enforcement, the justice system, etc. is real. That perception of reality is what lays the foundation for a need to have voices raised to say, "the lives of...

It is subjective to the human perspective. However, if what we are speaking about is human morality, that is how to deal with human beings, then the human point of view is all that's needed.

There is nothing plural about human nature as there aren't multiple ones to even have a contradiction. Human nature is human nature and is NOT the same as an individual's likes, preferences, or personality.

That's totally irrelevant. It's not about the abuser, it's ONLY about the perspective of the receiver. That's not the question. The question is instead, "What's wrong with BEING ABUSED"? That is the perspective from which understanding of good and bad arises. I have repeated a few times now...

After an analysis I'd assert that that which is morally good, justified, or acceptable is determined by both the objective (our human nature) as well the the subjective (individual, cultural, & religious perspectives) with the objective part being the primary driver with the subjective able to...

There confusion comes in when 2 "sides" are considered with one being the abused and the other the abuser. That muddies the water unnecessarily. There need not be 2 sides considered else a double standard could occur. The only side that is to be analysed to determine whether humans consider...

We all are. Not by choice, but by nature. If you cut any of us we will bleed and it will hurt. If either of us is thirsty and water is provided it will bring nourishing pleasure. Humans are human, even the "bad" ones. Wrong. Good and bad aren't determined or decided upon. They are instead based...

IMO the issue is not so much a debate over the implications of evidence, but rather the ignoring of evidence unless it can be used to support prior held beliefs. We tend to start with a position and fight like all you know what to defend it rather than attempting to start with as much of a blank...

There is no "which humans" here. Just humans, period, as the human species is overwhelmingly similar in nature.

The freedom to voice such an option is there. However, the consequences to making such an assertion to a public that feels it's bigoted are also there, so push back and public shaming (a bad thing, but in this case justifiable by the public) should be expected. Quite a slippery slope being...

Yes, subject to the human-defined distinctions of good and bad that are based on how humanity demonstrably is. This is more objective. I'd venture to say so. More specifically, the perspectives of those acting individuals is the catalysts for the attempts at justifying acts that would...

Good and bad are good and bad. The circumstance that can or cannot justify the bad act is the context.

The question is posed in hopes of discovering the source of the disconnect between what is written verses what is promoted. How did one get developed?

I've been reading the Bible a lot lately and I've become taken aback by how stark the differences are between what I read and what many in the Christian community believe, teach, and practice. It sometimes makes me wonder whether the religion many practice comes from the book at all as it seems...

Why have we made sexuality into a moral issue at all? It seems to overstep and greatly "subjectify" what is good and what is bad.

No need to decide, just recognize how humans are and that humans have to/get to be humans together. Good and bad weren't exactly what would be decided on in these circumstances. What is done instead is a rationalization of why bringing about bad upon another group is somehow justifiable...

You're obfuscating. Go back to the post of mine that you quoted a line from. I clearly gave an explanation. ..... A question I wrestle with is that of if human morality is based on human nature and human nature is observable, testable, and can be verified as being whatever it is; does that then...

We can't help being human (humanity). We have a choice as to whether or not we will abide by what living in a beneficial societal construct asks of us (social contract). The two are not the same and making the so, muddies the water. You TOTALLY missed the point. This, as I said before is not...