fashiznit78

... ATHEISM ba ang "PANGUNAHING DAHILAN" sa PAGKAKAROON ng COMMUNISM?

No. The alleged bourgeoisie abuse of the proletariat is the reason for its formulation. It's more of an economic system than a political one.

Well, considering the alternative, is it "atheist" inspired? Hmmmm... no... Communism, Soviet and China models, are indeed ATHEIST inspired.

Is this the only alternative?

^^ Well, the US constitution (after which the Philippine constitution was patterned) itself "implores the aid of God". So there is BASIS for claiming that that is Godly-inspired, or at least formulated by men who believed in God (and whose morals are influenced by God's moral code).

 

Yes, the atheists NEED to formulate their own moral code if they wish to totally reject the God notion. I am not saying that it should be any different from what theists claim to be God's moral code. What I am saying is, why should atheists follow a code based on NOTHING (since God, according to the atheists, does not exist).

 

Let me help you atheists out. DEMOCRACY is a purely man-made idea (that I think is a good idea). You will not find that in any holy scriptures. God never commanded to have free elections every six years or so. So there, that is one.

Sir, the "imploring the aid of Almighty God" part is found only in the preamble, which is not a source of any substantive right. Besides, the framers of the Philippine Constitution were/are theists: Christians and some Muslims but no representation from the non-theists. The US Constitution on the other hand were framed by deists, unitarians, and universalists (probably some Christians)but theists nonetheless and used the word Providence. Now I ask, how you came to conclude that the morals in these Constitutions (however vague they are sometimes) were indeed godly-inspired by mere mention of the word 'God' and 'Providence?'

From the start, the basic premise of this thread is already in doubt. What are you trying to argue, that the moral code was god given or that without a moral code, god given or otherwise, man would be unable to advance and prosper?

 

Can you please change the title to something less theist inspired/derived?

 

That slight tantrum over, I shall endeavor to put my point of view on the whole morality issue.

 

Let's take a closer look at the basic concept of morality, at least from a Christian point of view.

 

The whole moral code of the Christians is taken In Toto from the Jews in the form of the Ten Commandments.

 

1. 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
   
2. 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
   
3. 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
   
4. 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
   
5. 'Honor your father and your mother.'
   
6. 'You shall not murder.'
   
7. 'You shall not commit adultery.'
   
8. 'You shall not steal.'
   
9. 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
   
10. 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

 

Let us try to summarize the whole thing though. The first 4 basically says "Love God above all else" and thus from a theistically neutral point of view don't really count. So we are left with 6.

1. 'Honor your father and your mother.'
   
2. 'You shall not murder.'
   
3. 'You shall not commit adultery.'
   
4. 'You shall not steal.'
   
5. 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
   
6. 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

 

Now 3, 4, and 6 are all basically saying the same thing (remember that in ancient times daughters were considered the property of the father and thus adultery is basically stealing your neighbor's daughter or his wife since adultery is defined as an extramarital affair. They can be summed into "You shall not covet that which is not thine." Stealing being a form of coveting after all.

 

1. 'Honor your father and your mother.'
   
2. 'You shall not murder.'
   
3. 'You shall not covet that which is not thine.'
   
4. 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

 

Now we are down to 4 commandments, but can we compress this further?

 

Of course we can.

 

Murder too is a form of stealing, you are stealing the life of another, ergo you are coveting it.

 

Now we are down to the 3 commandments.

1. 'Honor your father and your mother.'
   
2. 'You shall not covet that which is not thine.'
   
3. 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

 

Now the whole false witness thing, what is that? Let's see if we can firm it up a little. "You shall not lie." Okay, that's pretty much a distinct thing. "Honor your father and mother", fine that can be cut short to "Honor your parents" and seems pretty distinct too.

 

Wait

 

Are they distinct? Can't we make it more succinct and boil it down to "Love others as you love yourself", surely you would honor your parents if you love them as yourself, you wouldn't lie to yourself, well for most people, some people seem to like lying to everyone including themselves, and the whole coveting thing would fall in with loving others as you love yourself since you wouldn't covet anymore.

 

So now we have the commandment

LOVE OTHERS AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF.

 

Now, is that really a god given rule? That's for another day.

I was backreading. Isn't this from one of George Carlin's routines?

is god's moral code moral because god said so? or did god had this code because it is moral?

There should be stricter laws against political dynasties

actually sir, we havent got one. the constitutional provision on political dynasties is a non-self-executing law. congress has yet to define it. but good call. im with your proposal.

^^not that im a gay-basher, but generally gays are not a marginalized sector. the law looks only at sex but not gender. laws on women apply also to female gays. gay men are still considered men being part of our patriarchal society. i dont see any reason why they should be categorized as a sector. ubi lex distinguit noc nos distnguire debemos.

to noynoy: please just always uphold the supremacy of the law.

may delayed telecast po ba ng UFC 114 sa ating mga local channels?

7:31 PM

comedy.

lights off or lights on

Palau

critic

Vladimir Illich Ulyanov

Woodrow Wilson

Pagudpud

surfer

to take care of plants and animals.

^^^ don't mean to be personal bro, its just based on what I see...Green Lantern, I didn't mean to insult you when I said you should join Islam. Why should that be insulting anyway???

Aww. Cmon man. I respected every post you made in the threads where you posted. I'm not insulted. I just tried to made fun of/for a point. Anyway or whatever, I salute you, Oh, Son of Thought and Logic! Peace, sir! Always glad to read intelligible people 'round here.

post-modern

You should join Islam you'll be perfect there, you being green and all that.

Ad hominem

Thank you Almighty Father for your natural law specifically bio-chemistry; the endorphins which provides for laughter and gladness. Thank you my dear wife for not tiring in understanding me. Thank you Ala for obeying me and your mum. Thank you manilatonight.com for the opportunity to be a part of this imagined community.

Thank you Almighty Father for your natural law specifically bio-chemistry; the endorphins which provides for laughter and gladness. Thank you my dear wife for not tiring in understanding me. Thank you Ala for obeying me and your mum. Thank you manilatonight.com for the opportunity to be a part of this imagined community.

In pursuit of goodness (i.e. happiness).

Constipated. 2 bottles o'beer just ain't right.

alternating

Daffodil

Enshrine