Religion, what's the point?

[Abbsta]

To be honest, I get Danny's reasoning. As everything in this universe is contingently existing, the catalyst not exist contingently but essentially. The biggest flaw in his argument, and Silva and Cider have touched on this, is why this "something" must exist as a personal God. Why does He have to have certain attributes, like sentience and why would he be egotistical enough to forward a reward-punishment system for the life that he purportedly designed? How do you make the leap from the belief of a creator through logical necessity to the Abrahamic God or Allah?

1. Attributes so we can have an idea for example the God attribute: All Hearing. Now we can have an idea what that means since we can hear but imagine if our ears can hear all frequencies of birds, animals etc. Our brains simply can't take it and it would crash. This then would give us an idea to His power.
2. 'Adam' a unique creature that differs from others. 'Adam' has desire, choice and intellect. Reward is logical. To me the idea that one day I'll be accountable for what I'm doing here (in this realm) makes feel good and keeps me in check from being naughty. Most importantly he is God. (We have become less sensitive to the word God because, in some instances, we made Him look like us).
3. The last question is answered by Prophets/Messengers. In the Quran-ic view, Abraham was wondering about creation.

“When the night grew dark upon him, he beheld a star, and said, ‘This is my Lord!’ But when it set, he said: ‘I love not things that set.’” (Quran 6:76)

“And when he saw the moon rising up, he exclaimed: ‘This is my Lord.’ But when it set, he said: ‘Unless my Lord guides me, I surely shall become one of the folk who are astray.’” (Quran 6:77)

“And when he saw the sun rising, he cried: ‘This is my Lord! This is greater!’ But when the sun set, he said, ‘O my people! Surely I am free from that which you associate with God. Verily, I have turned my face towards Him Who has created the heavens and the earth, away from idolatry, and I am not of those who associate others with God.’” (Quran 6:78)

It was a series of questioning to which God then answered. It was a simple deductive reasoning. Abraham proved to his people that the Lord of the worlds was not to be found in the creations that their idols represented, but was, rather, the entity who created them and everything which they could see and perceive; that the Lord does not necessarily need to be seen in order to be worshipped. He is an All-Able Lord, not bound by limitations as the creations found in this world are.

---

The main idea from Islamic POV is submission which includes humility. The danger lies when we lose the understanding of the word God and speak of it as any other object. Like the main boss at work who we obey and hardly question and this is just a guy.

 

[Danny1982]

Wow, four pages since I left yesterday, I honestly don't have enough time to reply to every single post, I'll start with this one because I think it's the crucial part of the discussion here, and see where it goes from here.. I may tackle the other points if I have time.

Well for one thing, a dice roll is more chaotic than random. The point that an atom decays though? That's random, and I don't see anyone rolling that dice.

We only call atom decay "random" because we don't fully understand how it works. If we knew exactly why it happens, we would definitely know why this atom decays now, and not that one, and why this one will follow and not that one...etc.

Nothing in the universe happens without a cause. That's actually how science is built. You observe a phenomenon, you ask yourself why it happens, then try to discover the causes and the mechanisms through which it happens.

The fact that you don't know the cause yet, or don't understand how it works exactly, doesn't mean that it happened "without any cause".

 

[Danny1982]

I was responding to Danny's existential contradiction. He's cherry picking when God can and cannot follow the laws of the material universe to suit his own beliefs.

On the question of how God came into existence he says:



So that conveniently solves the riddle of 'Where did God come from then?' The solution is that God didn't come from anywhere, he just WAS, since only things from the material universe need a reason to be in existence; God exists outside the material universe and as such cannot possibly follow its laws such as cause and effect.

Yet, God conveniently follows other laws present in the material universe; he conveniently seems able to harness energy for example - a whole lot of it too by the looks of things. He also rather conveniently manages to hold very human characteristics and emotions such as intelligence and desire; notions too governed by the laws of cause and effect and reason, the laws of the material universe which God was apparently previously and quite conveniently incapable of following.

Danny changes that characteristics of his God to suit whichever contradiction he might at the time be attempting to justify. On the one hand Danny's God by very definition cannot possibly follow the laws of the material universe, whilst on the other hand God seems in possession of intelligence, desire and the ability to harness enormous amounts of energy.

How can an entity with no connection whatsoever to the laws of cause and effect or reason ever possess any degree of motivation to create anything? Surely the entire concept of creation would be impossible for any such entity to want for, for how could a being which cannot possibly follow the laws of reason and cause and effect ever reason that it wants to cause the universe to come into existence with immediate effect?

You seem to be mixing up two things here. Being limited/regulated by some laws, and being able to use those laws to do what he wants.

I can write a program in the computer, which follows certain rules.. I, personally, don't follow the rules I put in my program, but that doesn't mean that I can't use them to do what I want.

 

[Silva]

Computer programming is something within this universe. With what authority do you postulate that the way things outside of out universe follow the same rules as we do? You're chatting shit Danny, you can't simultaneously say that we can't understand god but that you can.

 

[Danny1982]

Personally, I'd commit to not ridiculing religious beliefs if they'd commit to not teaching children religion when they're defenseless. Ridicule is the main weapon we have to act as a weapon against this brainwashing so it's very difficult to give it up unilaterally.

This is an honest post.. It's become a "war" rather than a search for the truth.. From both sides (not generalizing here though).

 

[Danny1982]

Computer programming is something within this universe. With what authority do you postulate that the way things outside of out universe follow the same rules as we do? You're chatting shit Danny, you can't simultaneously say that we can't understand god but that y'ou can.

It was an example.. Read it again.. The universe in my example is my program, and the laws are my code.

The point is to understand the difference between having to follow the laws, and being able to use the laws.

 

[Silva]

It was an example.. Read it again.. The universe in my example is my program, and the laws are my code.

The point is to understand the difference between having to follow the laws, and being able to use the laws.

I read it, and that wasn't my point. With what authority can you say that it is your god who put the laws into the universe?

 

[Red-Indian]

This is an honest post.. It's become a "war" rather than a search for the truth.. From both sides (not generalizing here though).

Yeah it's still a pretty unequal war though. We've moved on from people being tortured and killed for being Atheists but even today it's illegal to become an Atheist in several countries around the world.

We're even allowed now to poke fun at some religions though poking fun at others could still get us killed.

Steady progress I guess. We just need to be patient.

 

[Abbsta]

I read it, and that wasn't my point. With what authority can you say that it is your god who put the laws into the universe?

Through Messengers. I touched on it in my reply above to Bear Attack - point 3.

 

[Silva]

Through Messengers. I touched on it in my reply above to Bear Attack - point 3.

And what makes your messengers so much better than the thousands of messengers for other religions?

 

[Bear Attack]

This all comes full circle. Through logical necessity you believe in God and through the catechism of certain religious sects, you find that their God is personal, sentient, benevolent, etc. My question, I suppose, is why do you believe in one scripture over another? If you, through your logic and intellect, believe that God exists, that is a first person belief (which is justified). But since you use scripture to justify why that mysterious entity is your personal God, you are now adhering to a third person institutional belief. Therefore, what is to account for the geographical or cultural arbitrariness of ending up following the teachings of a particular religion that through some awesome power of serendipity, is the one that would lead you to salvation?

 

[Danny1982]

This all comes full circle. Through logical necessity you believe in God and through the catechism of certain religious sects, you find that their God is personal, sentient, benevolent, etc. My question, I suppose, is why do you believe in one scripture over another? If you, through your logic and intellect, believe that God exists, that is a first person belief (which is justified). But since you use scripture to justify why that mysterious entity is your personal God, you are now adhering to a third person institutional belief. Therefore, what is to account for the geographical or cultural arbitrariness of ending up following the teachings of a particular religion that through some awesome power of serendipity, is the one that would lead you to salvation?

I've not used any scripture so far to prove to anything. I'm merely trying to figure out what the real God (logically) should be like, and then start testing different religions against my conclusions..

For example, if somebody tells me that "Fire" is their God, I'm not going to tell him that you're wrong because "my" scripture says so. I'm going to tell him that you're wrong because fire can't be a God, simply because it's part of the universe, and follows it's laws, and thus won't be able to answer the question of the creation of the universe, and so it's pointless to call it God..

Also, your post gives the impression that you think that all religions go against each other.. Do you think so? Do you think for example that Islam says that Christianity is wrong?

 

[Silva]

Does Islam say that Hinduism is right?

And Ciders nuclear cheese isn't part of the universe, it's a timeless cheese that exists outside of the laws of the universe, it makes nuclear reactors work. Just because there may be cheese in your fridge is a coincidence, the nuclear cheese doesn't have a physical body, it exists as an entity outside of our universe. We can't understand it because it doesn't follow the same laws as we do though, but it makes nuclear reactors work. How can you prove that's wrong?

 

[Bear Attack]

The Catholic Church certainly thinks other religions are wrong.

 

[Danny1982]

The Catholic Church certainly thinks other religions are wrong.

Is Moses according to Christianity a prophet coming from the same God they believe in or not?

 

[Silva]

What does that have to do with it? The Catholic church sees Muhammad as a pedophile and fraud. It teaches that Muslims are all burning in hell.

 

[Danny1982]

Does Islam say that Hinduism is right?

And Ciders nuclear cheese isn't part of the universe, it's a timeless cheese that exists outside of the laws of the universe, it makes nuclear reactors work. Just because there may be cheese in your fridge is a coincidence, the nuclear cheese doesn't have a physical body, it exists as an entity outside of our universe. We can't understand it because it doesn't follow the same laws as we do though, but it makes nuclear reactors work. How can you prove that's wrong?

If it carries all the characteristics of "God" and none of the characteristics of the "Cheese", then why did you call it "Cheese" and not "God"?!

And no, I gave you an example of other Gods that don't fit the logic that necessates the existence of God.. However, the objections to their Gods are logical rather than "my scripture says so"..

 

[Abbsta]

And what makes your messengers so much better than the thousands of messengers for other religions?

We are told that God has sent Messengers to all humans for example... Native Indians and their Great Spirit. What's happened to their prophets and messagers I don't know. The only 'obvious' thing would be that the message was corrupted along the way.

 

[Silva]

If it carries all the characteristics of "God" and none of the characteristics of the "Cheese", then why did you call it "Cheese" and not "God"?!

And no, I gave you an example of other Gods that don't fit the logic that necessates the existence of God.. However, the objections to their Gods are logical rather than "my scripture says so"..

The cheese isn't a creator, the cheese is only concerned with nuclear reactors.

The 'logic' that necessitates the existence of god is utter drivel. The only logical answer to "well, I don't know how the universe began" isn't "god did it" it's, "I don't know how the universe began."

We are told that God has sent Messengers to all humans for example... Native Indians and their Great Spirit. What's happened to their prophets and messagers I don't know. The only 'obvious' thing would be that the message was corrupted along the way.

Why did god give different people different messages? Including, by the way, orders to slaughter one another.

And what about the recent, or the people currently alive, who claim to be messengers of god. Why don't you listen to their message?

 

[Abbsta]

Why did god give different people different messages? Including, by the way, orders to slaughter one another.

And what about the recent, or the people currently alive, who claim to be messengers of god. Why don't you listen to their message?

No it the same message - the 'oneness' of God in the root level then as time progresses new laws would be introduced for example (I'm basing this idea on how the Quran was introduced). The 'slaughtering' (as you put it) was specific in context, time and place.

Many people claim to be prophets but there are specific signs that the authentic ones have. One of them is the seal of prophecy. It's like a birth mark on your body. Mohammed had it on his shoulder stating the Muslim testimony (No God but Allah and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah).

 

[Danny1982]

The cheese isn't a creator, the cheese is only concerned with nuclear reactors.

The 'logic' that necessitates the existence of god is utter drivel. The only logical answer to "well, I don't know how the universe began" isn't "god did it" it's, "I don't know how the universe began."

You didn't answer me (and I'm asking this for the millionth time), why did you call it "Cheese"?

It's not just a real "I don't know yet". The real "I don't know yet" is what you're trying to call "random" when it comes to atoms decay. That's where you should have used the words "I don't know yet"..

When it comes to the creation of the universe, it's not only "I don't know yet". It's "I will never be able to explain according to the laws of the universe". Because our universe (and science) is built on the fact that every event has to have a cause for it to happen. It's merely a=>b=>c=>d=>e...etc., and it's a logical necessity in this case to have an entity outside this universe (and not limited by its laws) to have created it.

 

[Red-Indian]

No it the same message - the 'oneness' of God in the root level then as time progresses new laws would be introduced for example (I'm basing this idea on how the Quran was introduced). The 'slaughtering' (as you put it) was specific in context, time and place.

Many people claim to be prophets but there are specific signs that the authentic ones have. One of them is the seal of prophecy. It's like a birth mark on your body. Mohammed had it on his shoulder stating the Muslim testimony (No God but Allah and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah).

It's all a bit silly isn't it though? The god will put birthmarks on messenger's shoulders to identify them but won't back it up with a big booming voice from he sky. He's testing our faith by getting us to strip every messenger naked and examine his body for marks so that we can believe them.

Sorry if I'm being a little offensive but do you understand why us Atheists find this as funny as Scientologists claiming aliens were deposited in volcanoes?

 

[Silva]

No it the same message - the 'oneness' of God in the root level then as time progresses new laws would be introduced for example (I'm basing this idea on how the Quran was introduced). The 'slaughtering' (as you put it) was specific in context, time and place.

Many people claim to be prophets but there are specific signs that the authentic ones have. One of them is the seal of prophecy. It's like a birth mark on your body. Mohammed had it on his shoulder stating the Muslim testimony (No God but Allah and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah).

The prophets of the religions who teach polytheism disagree with this 'oneness' bollocks. And the Quran is no longer progressive, it's at complete odds with everything we consider progressive today, where is the latest installment in gods series of books?

And feck off is a birthmark a seal of prophesy, there are millions of people with birthmarks, one of my fecking flatmates has a birthmark on his shoulder, are you telling me his proclamation that Liverpool is the greatest city in the world is because of some divine inspiration?

You didn't answer me (and I'm asking this for the millionth time), why did you call it "Cheese"?

It's not just a real "I don't know yet". The real "I don't know yet" is what you're trying to call "random" when it comes to atoms decay. That's where you should have used the words "I don't know yet"..

When it comes to the creation of the universe, it's not only "I don't know yet". It's "I will never be able to explain according to the laws of the universe". Because our universe (and science) is built on the fact that every event has to have a cause for it to happen. It's merely a=>b=>c=>d=>e...etc., and it's a logical necessity in this case to have an entity outside this universe (and not limited by its laws) to have created it.

It's called cheese because cider called it cheese of the top of his head. The name doesn't matter, it's properties are similar as those of the god your presenting to us now. It has properties which you can't falsify, how do you know a nuclear cheese, then, doesn't exist?

That's not a logical necessity at all, you're making it a logical necessity just so it fits in with your conception of god. And the only logical answer is "I don't know", anything else is a fabrication.

 

[Abbsta]

The prophets of the religions who teach polytheism disagree with this 'oneness' bollocks. And the Quran is no longer progressive, it's at complete odds with everything we consider progressive today, where is the latest installment in gods series of books?

And feck off is a birthmark a seal of prophesy, there are millions of people with birthmarks, one of my fecking flatmates has a birthmark on his shoulder, are you telling me his proclamation that Liverpool is the greatest city in the world is because of some divine inspiration?

Fine if they disagree. I prefer the oneness. Thanks.

The birthmark itself displays the testimony. Imagine your actual name is on your arm - not a tattoo but actual flesh.

 

[Silva]

The birthmark displays the testimony? What the actual feck?

 

[Abbsta]

It's all a bit silly isn't it though? The god will put birthmarks on messenger's shoulders to identify them but won't back it up with a big booming voice from he sky. He's testing our faith by getting us to strip every messenger naked and examine his body for marks so that we can believe them.

Sorry if I'm being a little offensive but do you understand why us Atheists find this as funny as Scientologists claiming aliens were deposited in volcanoes?

It doesn't matter if sound silly to us. Back then they (prophets) all had it. It was one way of verifying the claimant plus the 'interview' questions with the Jews.

That's why the position was on the shoulder - to preserve one's dignity.

The 'booming voice' falls under the same catogary as the visual 'miracles' - parting of the sea etc. There is no way for us to verify this and therefore it's pointless to us today. Hence a book instead.

That's OK. I don't mind if you need to vent out.

 

[Vato]

I like this part of your post. I don't think we should debate the people here, or try to make it personal, because nothing kills a debate more than that.. In fact, just to answer your question briefly, my parents aren't Muslims, and let's just leave it at that.. Does that mean I'm right? Or does that make any point in my favor? No, which is why it's pointless to talk about specific personal issues, and why I ignore those questions..

I don't claim that I've studied everything, and neither can anybody.. But I did read about other religions, including Islam, and I'm more than an ignorant dude when it comes to science. In fact, the impression I'm getting here is that I know more about evolution, quantum mechanics, or science in general than you do about the Quran for example (again not you personally, but the people I debated here in general). Does that make me automatically in the right? No. It's the arguments we make that makes the difference. For me at least.

The rest of your post is just your impression about religions.

What do you think will happen to your parents after they die, Danny? Is that why you want to leave it at that? I'm really curious about how this works.

My best mate's father is an Indonesian muslim and has a daughter who is a lesbian. What is written in the Quran about that? Will he stand by his god after he decides that she doesn't deserve a place in heaven but has to burn in hell because of her sexual preference?

Also, can an atheist who devoted his whole life to helping others get into heaven? What do you think? And please don't give me the old "that's for god himself to decide", I just want your thoughts on this.

 

[Danny1982]

It's called cheese because cider called it cheese of the top of his head. The name doesn't matter, it's properties are similar as those of the god your presenting to us now. It has properties which you can't falsify, how do you know a nuclear cheese, then, doesn't exist?

That's not a logical necessity at all, you're making it a logical necessity just so it fits in with your conception of god. And the only logical answer is "I don't know", anything else is a fabrication.

Ok.

 

[Silva]

So, the cheese exist?

You're a prophet cider, you should spread the word.

 

[Abbsta]

The birthmark displays the testimony? What the actual feck?

Sorry I am looking around for reliable sources. I maybe mistaken... It could be just - Mohammad is messenger of Allah.

 

[Silva]

Sorry I am looking around for reliable sources. I maybe mistaken... It could be just - Mohammad is messenger of Allah.

But how does a birthmark prove someone is a prophet? What distinction is there between the other people with birthmarks from prophets? What's the difference between the birthmark on my flatmates shoulder and the one on Muhammads?

 

[Abbsta]

This all comes full circle. Through logical necessity you believe in God and through the catechism of certain religious sects, you find that their God is personal, sentient, benevolent, etc. My question, I suppose, is why do you believe in one scripture over another? If you, through your logic and intellect, believe that God exists, that is a first person belief (which is justified). But since you use scripture to justify why that mysterious entity is your personal God, you are now adhering to a third person institutional belief. Therefore, what is to account for the geographical or cultural arbitrariness of ending up following the teachings of a particular religion that through some awesome power of serendipity, is the one that would lead you to salvation?

Im guessing you are replying to me.

Consistency of the scripture (no contradictions) and its core message are a start and from that I can also trust its messenger. Because nothing is broken in style, content etc.

I would start by excluding ones that promotes multiple gods since I prefer the idea of oneness. The Quran was unique in its accumulation since Mohammad died after it was verified and written. This alone gets rid of one major doubt other scriptures suffer from. Secondly, how it is in tune with human nature as it develops.

The difficulty lies in the impossiblity that we can take a peek outside this universe, therefore the contact must come from Him. The 'fitrah' (innate Belief in the Creator) would make me wonder about things but it would be impossible for me to know anything untill someones tell me (like in the case of Abraham).

Sorry, I don't follow your last question so could you please rephrase it.

 

[Abbsta]

But how does a birthmark prove someone is a prophet? What distinction is there between the other people with birthmarks from prophets? What's the difference between the birthmark on my flatmates shoulder and the one on Muhammads?

Silva stop being a troll. I already told that it was statement. At the time that was one thing claimants of prophecy must have + the interview questions.

 

[Danny1982]

What do you think will happen to your parents after they die, Danny? Is that why you want to leave it at that? I'm really curious about how this works.

My best mate's father is an Indonesian muslim and has a daughter who is a lesbian. What is written in the Quran about that? Will he stand by his god after he decides that she doesn't deserve a place in heaven but burn in hell because of her sexual preference?

Also, can an atheist who devoted his whole life to helping others get into heaven? What do you think? And please don't give me the old "that's for god himself to decide", I just want your thoughts on this.

No, that's not why I wanted to leave it at that.. It's because it's irrelevant to our discussion, and I don't want the discussion to get personal..

I don't want to discuss homosexuality here, because it's pointless. It will never add anything to the debate, as you can't disprove God by setting your own morality as the standard and the correct one, and then measure every other morality against it.

Now, is this question about a father and his daughter (or a son and his parents) intended to portray the religion as a bad thing that separates the father from his daughter (or a son from his parents)? "Oh how disgusting!"?

Let me ask you a question: If you're a judge, and your father committed a crime, will you apply the law and put him in jail? "Oh damn the law that makes the son jails his father"!

These are all attempts to make the discussion subjective, rather than objective.. Trying to throw some emotions in it.. It's not like that, and a discussion like that will never lead to anything.

In fact, if you look at it objectively, the relations between family members among religious people is much stronger than the relations between family members among atheists. But I don't want to get into that now..

Now what do I think? People's actions are not all on the same level. It's not a binary system, either good or bad.. There are many levels for good actions, and many levels for bad actions (and this is also familiar to us, as not all crimes are on the same level even in our life)..

We do know that some things are bad. And some things are good. And most things are neither bad nor good (I mean you won't be rewarded for it, nor will you be punished for it), and some we're not really sure about (usually things that are not that important). But how is everybody going to be judged if he had a mixtures of those? I can't say. How do you expect me to know?! Being a Muslim, or a follower of any religion doesn't make me God, or a speaker of God..

However, I know (according to Islam/the Quran) that it can happen that a father goes to heaven and a son goes to hell. That a husband goes to hell and his wife goes to heaven. That a husband goes to heaven and his wife goes to hell...etc. It can happen. What will happen to my parents? I don't know. All I know that everybody will be judged based on his own actions, and none of anybody else.

 

[Silva]

Silva stop being a troll. I already told that it was statement. At the time that was one thing claimants of prophecy must have + the interview questions.

I'm not trolling, I'm just saying that's batshit crazy. People have birthmarks, it doesn't prove anything.

 

[Silva]

No, that's not why I wanted to leave it at that.. It's because it's irrelevant to our discussion, and I don't want the discussion to get personal..

I don't want to discuss homosexuality here, because it's pointless. It will never add anything to the debate, as you can't disprove God by setting your own morality as the standard and the correct one, and then measure every other morality against it.

Now, is this question about a father and his daughter (or a son and his parents) intended to portray the religion as a bad thing that separates the father from his daughter (or a son from his parents)? "Oh how disgusting!"?

Let me ask you a question: If you're a judge, and your father committed a crime, will you apply the law and put him in jail? "Oh damn the law that makes the son jails his father"!

These are all attempts to make the discussion subjective, rather than objective.. Trying to throw some emotions in it.. It's not like that, and a discussion like that will never lead to anything.

In fact, if you look at it objectively, the relations between family members among religious people is much stronger than the relations between family members among atheists. But I don't want to get into that now..

Now what do I think? People's actions are not all on the same level. It's not a binary system, either good or bad.. There are many levels for good actions, and many levels for bad actions (and this is also familiar to us, as not all crimes are on the same level even in our life)..

We do know that some things are bad. And some things are good. And most things are neither bad nor good (I mean you won't be rewarded for it, nor will you be punished for it), and some we're not really sure about (usually things that are not that important). But how is everybody going to be judged if he had a mixtures of those? I can't say. How do you expect me to know?! Being a Muslim, or a follower of any religion doesn't make me God, or a speaker of God..

However, I know (according to Islam/the Quran) that it can happen that a father goes to heaven and a son goes to hell. That a husband goes to hell and his wife goes to heaven. That a husband goes to heaven and his wife goes to hell...etc. It can happen. What will happen to my parents? I don't know. All I know that everybody will be judged based on his own actions, and none of anybody else.

It's quite important to the discussion, moral codes are part of religion, if you're not willing to have the moral code of a religion analyzed then you're not willing to have the religion analyzed. And why is your morality the correct one and Vatos the wrong one?

And where the feck are you getting the "Atheists have weaker family links than religious people" from?

 

[Danny1982]

It's quite important to the discussion, moral codes are part of religion, if you're not willing to have the moral code of a religion analyzed then you're not willing to have the religion analyzed. And why is your morality the correct one and Vatos the wrong one?

And where the feck are you getting the "Atheists have weaker family links than religious people" from?

Analyzed against what? Your moral code?!

 

[Silva]

Analyzed against what? Your moral code?!

Analyzed against a couple of thousand of years of ethical theory.

So, what do you say about homosexuality then? Does god care who fecks who?

 

[Bear Attack]

Abbsta + Danny:

Do these divine messengers forward moral principles and normative ideas about what the right thing to do is?

 

[Danny1982]

Abbsta + Danny:

Do these divine messengers forward moral principles and normative ideas about what the right thing to do is?

Yes.