Going to church for the wrong reasons

[Harbal]

where did the law come from?

Which law? UK law, do you mean? Our law is subject to act of Parliament, as far as I know. The basis for framing law could be any number of things. Religious influence, various philosophical concepts, such as Utilitarianism, or even just the personal sentiments of the people who have the final say over what does and does not go into the statute books.

 

[joe90]

 

[joe90]

so you would say like morality is subjective, like cannibalism is good for the group if that's what it wills.

 

[Harbal]

so you would say like morality is subjective, like cannibalism is good for the group if that's what it wills.

I would certainly say morality is subjective, yes. You only have to look at what different cultures, at different times in history, have regarded as right and wrong to realise that. You are not asking anything specific enough about cannibalism for me to be able to give my opinion on it.

Btw, why do you keep putting laughing faces on my posts?

 

[Harbal]

You've gone quiet, joe. Are you okay?

 

[joe90]

yes I'm good, I was laughing because I gathered your answers before you spoke.

 

[joe90]

so you are happy for Britain to leave the ECHR and back to the 10 commandments as the rule of law under your belief system, or sharia law if that's what the people want.

 

[Harbal]

so you are happy for Britain to leave the ECHR and back to the 10 commandments as the rule of law under your belief system, or sharia law if that's what the people want.

Is Britain leaving the ECHR? I don't know anything about. And I don't really know what you are asking me about the 10 commandments and Sharia Law.

 

[joe90]

I didn't say they are leaving, I said if the people in Britain willed it. you don't understand living under sharia law or the 10 commandants?

I'm saying under the previous question about laws you said it subjective to the individual or group? so you would be happy for cannibalism to be a practice? I'm trying to work out where you get your moral authority from?

 

[joe90]

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2F3hFok7k%3Ffbclid%3DIwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1WAEMt2OUzFmBEFlQpaSukJ8lYFr2hxqJzPKXEAkJhGMWvAVnUENZyILk_aem_KAJ026tKOXjoJ00aNqt-rQ&h=AT3noD5Lpayyk_nDvQ0unmWtc7Uo4Eq7mO5bIjCFPeL3VjTXRLoHBjBbBkd2xoMZa0gBBT_-SlmPuWzkAH_e__KehpZtQhoFhleswEvA-QXpqdhASEhbjg1HEb0vSl5ffXtT&__tn__=R*F

 

[Harbal]

I didn't say they are leaving, I said if the people in Britain willed it. you don't understand living under sharia law or the 10 commandants?

I wouldn't want to be subject to any religion based law. I don't think the 10 Commandments or Sharia Law are relevant in a modern, western society. Not that I know anything about Sharia Law.

I'm saying under the previous question about laws you said it subjective to the individual or group? so you would be happy for cannibalism to be a practice? I'm trying to work out where you get your moral authority from?

Just because I think morality is subjective doesn't mean I have to accept any set of moral standards that I don't agree with. My own morality would prevent me from participating in cannibalism, but that does not have any authority over anyone else. I could condemn those who practice cannibalism, but I do not have any power to prevent them. I suppose the law is where moral authority lies; at least in as much as the law is able to enforce it's authority.

I assume you consider God to be the ultimate moral authority, and you know what he demands of us because it is written down in the Bible. If that is the case, you probably regard the morality of the Bible as objective truth. While I know that my morality is based on my own subjective personal feelings and sentiments, it still feels objectively true to me, and influences my conduct accordingly.

 

[joe90]

so you just go off your feelings and that's it basically. I understand you don't want to be subject to religious laws but, if the majority of the people voted it according to your beliefs that's then law. you basically give the people what they want, a bit like the jews shouting we want Barabbas.

 

[joe90]

 

[Harbal]

so you just go off your feelings and that's it basically. I understand you don't want to be subject to religious laws but, if the majority of the people voted it according to your beliefs that's then law. you basically give the people what they want, a bit like the jews shouting we want Barabbas.

Well yes, the law is to some extent a matter of giving the people what they want. Moral attitudes evolve over time, and the law evolves similarly. We don't have to go too far back in history to see examples of horrendous laws that we would consider totally unacceptable today, and in a time when people were far more religious than they are now.

 

[joe90]

 

[Harbal]

Do you never feel tempted to express your thoughts in your own words, joe? I can't speak for anyone else, but if I wanted to watch videos I would just go straight to Youtube.

 

[Kev45]

"Readers should handle Dr Boot with caution. He ranges across a great selection of thinkers and writers, but often relies on secondary sources [30], so readers need to track down the original context and the use (or misuse) made by commentators. His facts are sometimes awry (for example, he claims that ‘most families’ in the UK pay Inheritance Tax, which actually falls on about 5% of all estates). He recycles a mythicised version of political history since the Puritan revolution, whereby the Massachusetts theocracy [31] and the Cromwellian Commonwealth founded democracy, and the welfare state was a product of anti-Christian humanism."

Joe Boot, 'voice' of the religious right.

Joe Boot review by Lusk

 

[joe90]

I've expressed them? I'm a Christian I believe in holy law? I believe in creation? I believe in objective truth?

you believe your feelings? cased closed?

what would you like to know?

 

[joe90]

"Readers should handle Dr Boot with caution. He ranges across a great selection of thinkers and writers, but often relies on secondary sources [30], so readers need to track down the original context and the use (or misuse) made by commentators. His facts are sometimes awry (for example, he claims that ‘most families’ in the UK pay Inheritance Tax, which actually falls on about 5% of all estates). He recycles a mythicised version of political history since the Puritan revolution, whereby the Massachusetts theocracy [31] and the Cromwellian Commonwealth founded democracy, and the welfare state was a product of anti-Christian humanism."

Joe Boot, 'voice' of the religious right.

Joe Boot review by Lusk

readers beware of Kev.
Radical left who sees scripture through a socialist lens and thinks Jesus was a socialist.

 

[Kev45]

I do believe Jesus could be described as a socialist Joe, and as do many other people.

But Joe, if you are going to post dodgy videos from the far right, then you will probably be called out on it.

And so Joe, if I may, why do you believe that the welfare state is a product of anti-Christian humanism?

Please don't answer with another question, which seems to be your style.