Nope...Just pathetic.lain:
:up:
toldailytopic: Is lying to an animal immoral?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
:up:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
That's the only meaning I know of, but I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt, in case "a lickin'" is pushing a dog aside with your knee so you can open the gate instead of, say, cornering a cowering dog and beating it down.
You've got that right on the euphemisms, lightbringer. I know we're in agreement on that subject from past discussions and I'm sorry for your memories.
Last edited:
This. :up:
fanci
New member
“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. (Exodus 20:16 NIV)
So then if we are telling the dog that he is not going to the vet but rather he is going to get a frosty, no. Not immoral. I wouldn't lie to my animals like that because I believe love does not lie to the object of it's affection. However, not immoral.
It is if we give false testimony. If you tell the dog that the sweet lady sitting next to you in church is a slut because her shirt is too revealing, now we are into false testimony against a neighbor. Lying in general is not to be encouraged by if we are seeking set boundaries...
Also, take caution what you say to your pet birds! ;-)
Peace be with you.
So then if we are telling the dog that he is not going to the vet but rather he is going to get a frosty, no. Not immoral. I wouldn't lie to my animals like that because I believe love does not lie to the object of it's affection. However, not immoral.
It is if we give false testimony. If you tell the dog that the sweet lady sitting next to you in church is a slut because her shirt is too revealing, now we are into false testimony against a neighbor. Lying in general is not to be encouraged by if we are seeking set boundaries...
Also, take caution what you say to your pet birds! ;-)
Peace be with you.
PureX
Well-known member
So you think morality is based on religious laws, rather then on love?
fanci
New member
I think religious laws are what we can use to guide us toward moral actions when dealing with those we have not yet developed a love for. Let us be honest here and say no one is perfect therefor it's highly unlikely that anyone has developed a love for all people/creatures. Again I feel that love does not lie To the object of it's affection, however if we are still in need of learning how to love someone or something, we rely on religious and governmental law for morality and furthermore on religious law to remind us of what what love manifest should look like. For example not giving false testimony concerning a person. I'm a little uncertain of how exactly to articulate my feelings on this subject so this is not a perfect explanation but as best I can give at the moment.
Peace be with you.
Peace be with you.
PureX
Well-known member
I think you may be mixing together too many different concepts. I think living by the "law of love" sufficiently transcends both the laws of society and the laws of religion. But we still need our laws, because we do not all live by love, all the time, and we don't always know how to, in every circumstance.
And the laws of religion and the laws of society are not one and the same, either. They're different from each other because they have different purposes. The laws of society are specifically intended to establish and maintain equality, freedom, justice, and opportunity for all. This is not a moral or religious imperative, it's a civil imperative. It's intent is to maintain civic unity and peace.
Religious laws, on the other hand, are based on maintaining one's adherence to a specific theological position, and religious doctrine. They are not meant for everyone, but only for those who adhere to the religion.
So really, we have different ethical imperatives generating different sets of 'laws'. Each set of ethical imperatives based on a specific goal. It can certainly be confusing.
But to the degree that we are able to act according to our love and respect for others, and for creation, itself, we will likely find that we are in accord with most of those other kinds of law, as well.
And the laws of religion and the laws of society are not one and the same, either. They're different from each other because they have different purposes. The laws of society are specifically intended to establish and maintain equality, freedom, justice, and opportunity for all. This is not a moral or religious imperative, it's a civil imperative. It's intent is to maintain civic unity and peace.
Religious laws, on the other hand, are based on maintaining one's adherence to a specific theological position, and religious doctrine. They are not meant for everyone, but only for those who adhere to the religion.
So really, we have different ethical imperatives generating different sets of 'laws'. Each set of ethical imperatives based on a specific goal. It can certainly be confusing.
But to the degree that we are able to act according to our love and respect for others, and for creation, itself, we will likely find that we are in accord with most of those other kinds of law, as well.
fanci
New member
You have a valid point. And I may be mixing concepts into a moral Long island... However I do feel that many (I wouldn't go so far as to say most, but many) religious laws are laws that teach us to show love for one another. We are not showing love for our neighbor or our God who commands is to love if we are sleeping with those neighbors' wives and then lying to the judge about it.
However if we are following Gods law we will be showing respect and care for God and others. While love may be more than respect and care, those are the most teachable aspects.
Also the only civil/government laws I am referring to are the most basic laws that simply imply respect of one another such as theft, murder, assault, harassment, etc.
Peace be with you.
However if we are following Gods law we will be showing respect and care for God and others. While love may be more than respect and care, those are the most teachable aspects.
Also the only civil/government laws I am referring to are the most basic laws that simply imply respect of one another such as theft, murder, assault, harassment, etc.
Peace be with you.
PureX
Well-known member
The laws may overlap, but I think the intent behind them often differs. We have civil laws against murder to establish and maintain the citizen's right to life (basic to civil peace). We have religious laws against murder because "God said so" (obedience to God). And the general 'law of love' forbids murder because murder is the opposite of an expression of love.
The law is the same, but the ethical imperative it's representing in each case is somewhat different. And the reason I think this is important to note, is to show that civil law is not necessarily moral, nor religiously inspired. While not all religious laws are loving, or beneficial to civil society.
fanci
New member
Fiat Tenebris
New member
It may have escaped your notice sir, but you're a bit of an animal yourself.
Posted from the TOL App!
Posted from the TOL App!
Only if they lie back.
Chimps have been known to lie. Once, in a facility with chimps capable of signing, one was asked who had urinated on the floor.
The chimp blamed a researcher who wasn't in the room at the time. They are capable of deception, because they seem to be capable of inferring that other beings can think.
The chimp blamed a researcher who wasn't in the room at the time. They are capable of deception, because they seem to be capable of inferring that other beings can think.