A thought about our significance

[carpedm9587]

Right, it didn't make much of a difference because they stopped following general Christian principles, that is obvious.

It is "obvious" to you because you like to select the most extreme positions taken by fanatics to try to remind everyone that subjective morality is not objective - which is not an argument - it's a tautology coupled with outrage. But when two of your Christian sects sit and disagree on whether homosexuality is immoral or morally neutral, you STILL do not have a way to resolve the problem - even though BOTH groups claim to be following an objectively true/absolute moral code. That is because both groups are subjectively deriving their moral codes, and there IS no recourse outside of the ones I have previously described - which is exactly what we see unfold, time and time again. Why you do not see this is beyond me.

But the point remains, having completely opposite moral behaviors being both right or good depending on cultural circumstances is absurd to me. I don't find it morally rational.

It's absurd to you because you have arbitrarily decided that morality is like math. When you recognize that morality is actually more like law - the absurdity goes away, and you simply work within the system.

[JimL]

See I was right. I knew what you were going to do. I guess I made you do it.

Jim, the problem you have is in not understanding space-time conceptually. To you the future doesn't exist. That is the hangup we have when discussing this. Your lack of understanding of the concepts involved. I suppose you don't believe in quantum mechanics because you don't understand that either.

Sparko that's just dumb. My argument takes into account the future existing. How can you not know that after so much discussion? So that is not at all the problem. The hangup that we have is apparently your inability to follow an argument or to comprend and understand logic.

[seer]

It is "obvious" to you because you like to select the most extreme positions taken by fanatics to try to remind everyone that subjective morality is not objective - which is not an argument - it's a tautology coupled with outrage. But when two of your Christian sects sit and disagree on whether homosexuality is immoral or morally neutral, you STILL do not have a way to resolve the problem - even though BOTH groups claim to be following an objectively true/absolute moral code. That is because both groups are subjectively deriving their moral codes, and there IS no recourse outside of the ones I have previously described - which is exactly what we see unfold, time and time again. Why you do not see this is beyond me.

Carp, it is not about outrage. If you are correct it is what logically follows. I use these examples because they actually happened. And yes, I do have a way to resolve the homosexual question - it is called Scripture. I will use Scripture, those on the other side will eventually deny Scripture - believe me, I have been in dozens of those debates. Second, it is not only about knowing what is right/wrong, that can at times be fuzzy since we all have ulterior motives due to sin, but that fact that if you are correct there are, in the end, no right answers when it comes to ethical question.

It's absurd to you because you have arbitrarily decided that morality is like math. When you recognize that morality is actually more like law - the absurdity goes away, and you simply work within the system.

Right, and slaughtering Jews was a moral good to the Nazis, and possibly for the Muslims, but maybe not for us - at least for now. Yes, I find that absurd, so sue me...

[Sparko]

Sparko that's just dumb. My argument takes into account the future existing. How can you not know that after so much discussion? So that is not at all the problem. The hangup that we have is apparently your inability to follow an argument or to comprend and understand logic.

Nope. You previously argued that the future does not exist yet and if it did then that in itself would preclude free will because your actions would already exist in the future so you would have no choice but to do them.

[Roy]

Men need moral certainty, like human rights being God given, or that there are universal ethical wrongs/rights.

Look at it this way, if you don't believe that gassing Jewish children is universally and objectively wrong then yes, I question your moral sanity.

First, there's a difference between having something vs needing it.

Second, such acts clearly aren't universally wrong since people have done them without considering them to be wrong.

Finally, seer does not believe that stabbing Amelekite children is universally and objectively wrong.

[seer]

Finally, seer does not believe that stabbing Amalekite children is universally and objectively wrong.

You mean the Amalekites who were already sacrificing their children by fire? Right, if God ordered that it is an objective good. How could it be otherwise? It doesn't change the fact that you are morally insane Roy...

[carpedm9587]

Carp, it is not about outrage.

Sure it is Seer. You don't raise moral issues with nuance to them - you go for the outrageous: gassing Jewish children - decapitating journalists - euthanizing people with disabilities. You haven't used all of those, but that's what you go for because it is "outrageous." After all - what sane person would ever say any of those things are OK. When I bring up a more nuanced topic, you go back to gassing Jewish children. Outrage - ridicule - and tautologies. So far, that's all you've really come up with.

If you are correct it is what logically follows. I use these examples because they actually happened. And yes, I do have a way to resolve the homosexual question - it is called Scripture. I will use Scripture, those on the other side will eventually deny Scripture - believe me, I have been in dozens of those debates.

They will "deny" scripture because their interpretation and yours do not align. So you will walk off claiming you are following scripture and doing what "god wants" and they are mistaken, and they will walk off claiming they are following scripture and doing what "god wants" and you are mistaken...and there is no basis for resolution. The bible is, after all, a collection of multiple books written in a foreign language and open to interpretation. Even simple commandments like "though shalt not murder" requires a definition of what consitutues "murder" and what does not - and results in significant variation in moral codes. You are striving for an absolute/universal and it simply cannot be shown to exist. On the other hand - the subjectivity of moral codes is readily apparent in all societies, and all individuals - even you.

As I noted - it is YOU who have decided that god is of such high value, that you wish to align your moral code to what you think this god wants. You keep by-passing that part. It is almost always cut out of your responses. If it is there, it is not addressed.

Second, it is not only about knowing what is right/wrong, that can at times be fuzzy since we all have ulterior motives due to sin, but that fact that if you are correct there are, in the end, no right answers when it comes to ethical question.

There are no universally/objectively right answers - by definition. There are subjective right answers at the individual and social/communal level. Indeed, subjective morality describes exactly what we see transpiring every day. Objective morality is not.

Right, and slaughtering Jews was a moral good to the Nazis, and possibly for the Muslims, but maybe not for us - at least for now. Yes, I find that absurd, so sue me...

Back to outrage...

[JimL]

Nope. You previously argued that the future does not exist yet and if it did then that in itself would preclude free will because your actions would already exist in the future so you would have no choice but to do them.

Egad! Whether or not I believe that the future exists has nothing to do with my argument concerning a world in which the future does exist. If the future does exist, then obviously that would preclude free will. Like I said, it seems you just can not follow an argument. Thats if, if, if, if the future exists. But if, if, if the future does not exist and god knows your future, then you still don't have free will. If an omniscient god created you, then he knew your future even before he created you, and you know what that means, at least you should know. No free will!

[seer]

Sure it is Seer. You don't raise moral issues with nuance to them - you go for the outrageous: gassing Jewish children - decapitating journalists - euthanizing people with disabilities. You haven't used all of those, but that's what you go for because it is "outrageous." After all - what sane person would ever say any of those things are OK. When I bring up a more nuanced topic, you go back to gassing Jewish children. Outrage - ridicule - and tautologies. So far, that's all you've really come up with.

You can't nuance the holocaust Carp!

They will "deny" scripture because their interpretation and yours do not align. So you will walk off claiming you are following scripture and doing what "god wants" and they are mistaken, and they will walk off claiming they are folowing scriptute and doing what "god wants" and you are mistaken...and there is no basis for resolution.

No Carp, they will deny the text, not just an interpretation. The texts are perfectly clear, homosexuality is immoral, you don't just get to make up your own interpretation. I don't get to just change the meaning of what you said above and call it interpretation.

The bible is, after all, a collection of multiple books written in a foreign language and open to interpretation. Even simple commandments like "though shalt not murder" requires a definition of what consitutues "murder" and what does not - and results in significant variation in moral codes. You are striving for an absolute/universal and it simply cannot be shown to exist. On the other hand - the subjectivity of moral codes is readily apparent in all societies, and all individuals - even you.

So you say, even if we subjectively get it all wrong that does not prove that universal moral truths don't exist. Just as if we all got our math sums wrong doesn't mean that there are not universally right answers.

There are no universally/objectively right answers - by definition. There are subjective right answers at the individual and social/communal level. Indeed, subjective morality describes exactly what we see transpiring every day. Objective morality is not.


Back to outrage...

Right, slaughtering Jews was a moral good to the Nazis, and possibly for the Muslims, but maybe not for us - at least for now. Yes, I find that absurd, so sue me... Outrage or not, that would be fact in your world view...

[carpedm9587]

You can't nuance the holocaust Carp!

But the fact that you keep going there is an argument from outrage, Seer - not reason.

No Carp, they will deny the text, not just an interpretation. The texts are perfectly clear, homosexuality is immoral, you don't just get to make up your own interpretation. I don't get to just change the meaning of what you said above and call it interpretation.

Your interpretation, Seer. Another is that the bible contains old/new law - and Jesus came forth to put forward a new law, based on love and not legality. If you take every "law" in the bible as absolute, then why are you not folowing these:

• When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." Deuteronomy 25:11-12
• "If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him ... and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband ... the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water ... this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot." Numbers 5:11-31
• "The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." Exodus 23:19
• When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence." Deuteronomy 22:8
• And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even." Leviticus 15:19-21

I could continue - but you should get the point. The OT (and NT) contain some amazing requirements and laws. They are in the definitive guide to morality, according to you. So why are you not following all of them? Perhaps, because as society evolves, some moral proscriptions become a bit odd. Women menstruating is no longer seen as a sign of being "unclean," and women are no longer seen, generally, as subservient to men. So we systematically set aside all of the rules that require special treatment for such a woman.

So you say, even if we subjectively get it all wrong that does not prove that universal moral truths don't exist. Just as if we all got our math sums wrong doesn't mean that there are not universally right answers.

No - what I say is that universal moral truths simply don't exist, period. The statement is not conditional. A moral framework is always subjectively derived. Even yours. You can point to a moral framework that is enshrined in a book and elect to align yours to that for whatever reason you may have, but your moral framework is subjective and you have elected to align it to that particular moral framework for whatever reassons you may have (i.e., god says so). You will also be aligning it to your interpretation of that framework - but you will (of course) declare it is the only correct interpretation.

You also keep going back to math - but I have already shown that morality has nothing in common with math - except that you are trying to leverage that math IS based on absolute truths to claim that morality is as well. When you can show me another way that moraity is like math OTHER than absoluteness (which you have refused to even try, and I have to admit I think it's because you know you cannot), then perhaps you can make a case for your analogy. Until then, it is clear to me that "law" is a better analog to "morality" - and it has none of the problems you keep ascribing to subjective morality.

Right, slaughtering Jews was a moral good to the Nazis, and possibly for the Muslims, but maybe not for us - at least for now. Yes, I find that absurd, so sue me... Outrage or not, that would be fact in your world view...

Not exactly. Slaughtering Jews is perceived as a moral good (presumably) to Nazis. Decapitating journalists is perceived (presumably) as a moral good to extremist Muslims. That does not make it a "moral good." It is perceived as a moral ill by most of the rest of us. There is no "absolute/objective" moral position because that is not how subjective moral frameworks work - they are not objective, by definition. So what establishes the moral norm for the individual is based on what they value. What establishes the moral norm for a community is the collective frameworks of the individuals. Moral codes that show strong cohesion are expressed in the communal moral codes. Those that do not are not and become the subject for discussion, persuassion, and (often) discord.

[Sparko]

Egad! Whether or not I believe that the future exists has nothing to do with my argument concerning a world in which the future does exist. If the future does exist, then obviously that would preclude free will. Like I said, it seems you just can not follow an argument. Thats if, if, if, if the future exists. But if, if, if the future does not exist and god knows your future, then you still don't have free will. If an omniscient god created you, then he knew your future even before he created you, and you know what that means, at least you should know. No free will!

I am just explaining why you can't grasp the concept Jim. I believe in a 4-dimensional universe where time and space are one substance. The past and future exist. We are the "future" to people in the past, and we are the past to people in the future. Just because from our point of view the past is fixed, doesn't mean that the people in the past didn't have free will. What they did, what became fixed after they did it, was because of free will. Booth killed Lincoln. From our perspective it is known what he did. If you could travel back in time before it happened, it would be in the future to Booth. But you would know what he is GOING to do, and it will still be because he freely chooses to do it. Knowing a future action is no different than knowing a past action in 4-dimensional space-time. The only thing that changes is the position of the observer who has the knowledge. The action that occurs is still because of free will.

That is what you cannot grasp. The resultant complete universe (which includes all of space and all of time) is basically a recording of all of the events that happened. And that includes all freewill actions.

[Roy]

You mean the Amalekites who were already sacrificing their children by fire? Right, if God ordered that it is an objective good. How could it be otherwise? It doesn't change the fact that you are morally insane Roy...

So according to seer, murdering children is both universally and objectively wrong and objectively good.

[JimL]

I am just explaining why you can't grasp the concept Jim. I believe in a 4-dimensional universe where time and space are one substance. The past and future exist. We are the "future" to people in the past, and we are the past to people in the future. Just because from our point of view the past is fixed, doesn't mean that the people in the past didn't have free will. What they did, what became fixed after they did it, was because of free will. Booth killed Lincoln. From our perspective it is known what he did. If you could travel back in time before it happened, it would be in the future to Booth. But you would know what he is GOING to do, and it will still be because he freely chooses to do it. Knowing a future action is no different than knowing a past action in 4-dimensional space-time. The only thing that changes is the position of the observer who has the knowledge. The action that occurs is still because of free will.

That is what you cannot grasp. The resultant complete universe (which includes all of space and all of time) is basically a recording of all of the events that happened. And that includes all freewill actions.

Oh boy, this is tough, I know you're not idiot Sparko, but why you can't see the illogic of the above is beyond me. I've explained it a million times, so I'm going to leave it for the time being and perhaps someone else will have mercy on me and try to see if they can point out your error.

[Roy]

Slaughtering Jews is perceived as a moral good (presumably) to Nazis.

And slaughtering Amelekites is perceived as a moral good to seer.

[Roy]

This is no longer relevant to Nat Sci. Can it be split off to apologetics or wherever is considered the appropriate place for defending genocide?