@Krumple,
Krumple;155066 wrote:How can you say that? I am asking questions to you and you call that arrogance? I am the one asking how you come up with this stuff and I get called arrogant? I am not the one making this stuff up and calling it factual.
The arrogance you exhibited was found in the final sentence of your response, in which you express your hope that I do my homework for a change. Self-aggrandizing statements like this do little to help your case. Also, you are only assuming that I am making stuff up.
Krumple;155066 wrote:What are non-sentient creatures? Can you give me a short list what those are because I have no idea what non-sentient creatures are. As far as I am concerned anything that reacts to pain or damage is considers by me to be sentient. This would include insects and animals. I can't seem to determine what a non-sentient creature is. If you mean angels are non-sentient creatures I would agree with you, because they are nothing other than imaginary creatures.
On the philosophical level, sentience would essentially be the ability of one to subjectively perceive or experience feelings. As for animals, the matter has not been completely shut as to the complete sentience of the variety of creatures in the "lower, animal kingdom," which I will define as the collection of those creatures not endowed with consciousness (this last part could be treated independently and should). All in all, though, if we were to place any importance on the subjectivity of semantics and the varying levels of abstraction, you could ultimately define any thing you wish as anything you wish.
I find your conclusion about angels as consistent. You cannot make such a conclusion and remain soundly rational. The reality is that you cannot know or prove the nonexistence of a thing in a particular container if the thing in particular is too small in relation to the container to be observed; this is the essential point of the problem of the Universal Negative. Angels would be classified as sentient, for they either chose to act in accordance to God's will or fall.
Krumple;155066 wrote:Oh christian thought is the only right thought? So burning people and killing them for not accepting the faith or promoting slavery is considered good, I don't want any part of it. I guess that makes me an evil person because I don't support the bigotry.
Christianity is not inherently prejudice, nor is it supportive of bigotry. Slavery is never held as good, but authorized and never is it authorized in the New Testament. As for the Old Testament, while we read authorization for the Israelites to take on slaves, they were commanded to treat them fairly and warned against abuse. The content of the Old Testament, as for the violence against falling away or introducing false idols and faiths were meant to keep purity within the nation, who were chosen by God and liberated out of bondage to Egypt. The Old Testament story is the story of the Creator who loved Israel so much that, despite every reason given to Him to enact His full wrath against them, He proclaimed restoration and that He would soon intervene for His people; this was done through Christ Jesus. Perhaps, though, you were referring to the church, wherein many professed Christians were guilty of persecuting each other and people of other faiths as a means of conversion, such as the Spanish Inquisition, the persecution of the many "fathers" of the Reformation, and the Salem witch trials.
I ask, though, is this Christianity or is this man? A thorough understanding of how we are to interact with the world would yield the answer that
this is man. Christ commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39) and, later, we read Jude, who tells us to basically love the sinner, but hate the sin (Jude 1:22-23). Next and, by no means, lesser to any extent, Jesus informs us that the visible church is going to contain both wheat and chaff (Matthew 13:24-30).
Krumple;155066 wrote: Immoral and moral are completely subjective terms. Good or evil are just as subjective. They only come about because of what a particular society adopts and enforces them to be. If a society accepts that murder is just and fine by all means that is what will happen. Just like I consider war murder yet people have some ways of justifying it. Your bible promotes that anyone who suggests you follow a different faith, they should be killed. You accept that to be justifiable?
Exodus 22:20
"Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed."
This is not the only place it suggests killing those who follow a different faith.
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God"
So if I suggest that you take up Buddhism instead of Christianity, you should kill me right? Isn't that what your manual suggests. So why don't you look into Buddhism? I guess I just signed my death sentence.
Much like what I wrote before, those portions of the Old Testament were primarily meant to keep the nation of Israel pure and holy. Much of the rest of the Old Testament was of God condemning them as a harlot, but far worse than a mere harlot (Ezekiel, for instance).
I admit that I detest what thinkers like Hobbes did to our "civilized" world. You are so convinced that morality is subjective, but why act for another person's well-being at all? I have looked into multiple ways and, before coming to Jesus, spent years studying eastern philosophy and mysticism, which was the companion to a greater amount of time studying eastern methods of combat. The Buddhism comment does not bother me, but, in light of what was discussed, it is remarked out of bias ignorance.
[/RIGHT]
