Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is anything that rolls around in the mind void of reason as the method of construction? To ask if something can come fourth from the mind without reason seems ludicrous. It would have to be an idea(!) that has no association to thought!
"I do ask a lot of questions. Then too, your apparent obfuscation leaves me virtually no alternative."
Perhaps you might consider that your questions while seeming to be concise require answers far more complex than they seem on the surface, so in order to answer a seemingly simple question, one is forces to peck around the edges to divine what the question really entails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Then I can only deduce that if, in someone else's perspective, slavery is deemed acceptable, that would in turn make slavery right for them.
But was that not the case even in Biblical accounts of slavery? Was it not right, just and moral for both Jews and early Christians? It was only the result of the Enlightenment that western perceptions on the morality of slavery came into question, not through some new revelation of "God's" transcendent and immutable law, but in trying reconcile the contradictions inherent in arguing for one man's freedom while at the same time denying such freedoms to another.
Quote:
Truth cannot be contradictory.
But the search for it can be contradictory as I pointed out above. Christianity for centuries condoned slavery, yet the truth of such countenance, was contradictory with the rational truth that one cannot argue the inherent right of freedom while accepting the enslavement of another.
Which is the problem. If "God's" law is transcendent and immutable, then why must we even bother with searching for truth, it should be readily apparent without need of clerical interpretations, or reinterpretations. There would be no need for the Talmud, myriad versions and translations of the bible, the Hadith or a coterie of wise religious men who assume to interpret and apply this transcendent and immutable law. So what is truth, the moral truth of Papal infallibility, the Truth of Martin Luther or the Truth according to Pat Roberston?
Quote:
Relative morality translates to ever changing morality.
And as your example of slavery amply illustrates, morality by necessity must be relative and ever changing. Just as man has evolved so must his sense of morality and ethics. We do not live in the 3rd Century, what was right and true in the 3rd Century is not what is right and true in the 21st and will not be in the 23rd.
Quote:
"If there is no God, all things are permissible."
That's just silly. In no society, god fearing or god less, are all things ever permissible. Every society has a moral code which governs behaviors of its members all with the help or hinderance of this god figure.
Which brings me the original purpose of this thread. After all of this time and all of these contributions to the tread, not one contributor has been able to point to a single society, untouched by the god of Jews and Christians, whereby the moral code of that society differed to such an extent as to be unrecognizably human.
If that is the case, then the god of the Jews and Christians had nothing to do with the formulation of certain basic moral precepts, and that being the case, the god of the Jews and Christians can lay no claim to their authorship.
e as being the product of humanity. If that is the case, then moral code of the Jews and the Christians isn't
Perhaps you might consider that your questions while seeming to be concise require answers far more complex than they seem on the surface, so in order to answer a seemingly simple question, one is forces to peck around the edges to divine what the question really entails.
All of my questions have been directed at getting an answer to my first question. Instead of giving me a straight-forward honest and direct answer, your tactic has been to obfuscate with excessive verbiage. Now, because I've been forced to consistently press the same question you accuse me of injecting complexity into the discussion?
Just go back to page one, re-read the question and provide a simple answer. It's really not that difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
But was that not the case even in Biblical accounts of slavery? Was it not right, just and moral for both Jews and early Christians? It was only the result of the Enlightenment that western perceptions on the morality of slavery came into question, not through some new revelation of "God's" transcendent and immutable law, but in trying reconcile the contradictions inherent in arguing for one man's freedom while at the same time denying such freedoms to another.
More obfuscation. You know very well the point that's being made here. Just answer the question.
A right to liberty can only be inalienable if it is endowed by a creator. Rights granted by the state are subject to being revoked by the state.
Stop trying to be such a wise A$$ and just answer the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
But the search for it can be contradictory as I pointed out above. Christianity for centuries condoned slavery, yet the truth of such countenance, was contradictory with the rational truth that one cannot argue the inherent right of freedom while accepting the enslavement of another.
...the problem is that we're talking about truth as opposed to the "search" for truth.
What's true is true. That which is false is false.
You say Christianity condoned slavery. Does this mean that those Christians that found no support for owning slaves in the teaching of Christ or New Testament scriptures were wrong?
I certainly won't deny that the issue has been historically controversial. Still, the truth is that it's either right or wrong.
So why don't you go ahead and lay out the theological and Biblical case for slavery - that is, if such a case can even be made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Which is the problem. If "God's" law is transcendent and immutable, then why must we even bother with searching for truth, it should be readily apparent without need of clerical interpretations, or reinterpretations. There would be no need for the Talmud, myriad versions and translations of the bible, the Hadith or a coterie of wise religious men who assume to interpret and apply this transcendent and immutable law. So what is truth, the moral truth of Papal infallibility, the Truth of Martin Luther or the Truth according to Pat Roberston?
Nonsense. You assert that God's law cannot be transcendent and immutable do to the need, in many cases, to search for truth?
True statement: Barrack Obama is President of the United States.
Now, we could argue over the truth of this statement until the cows come home - but would that change the truth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
And as your example of slavery amply illustrates, morality by necessity must be relative and ever changing. Just as man has evolved so must his sense of morality and ethics. We do not live in the 3rd Century, what was right and true in the 3rd Century is not what is right and true in the 21st and will not be in the 23rd.
My example amply illustrates that morality is "by necessity" relative, if there is no transcendent and eternal law giver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
That's just silly. In no society, god fearing or god less, are all things ever permissible. Every society has a moral code which governs behaviors of its members all with the help or hinderance of this god figure.
No, it's quite logical and reasonable - if there is no God.
What the state gives the state can take away. Societies and times change and no person that I know has the ability to predict/know the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Which brings me the original purpose of this thread. After all of this time and all of these contributions to the tread, not one contributor has been able to point to a single society, untouched by the god of Jews and Christians, whereby the moral code of that society differed to such an extent as to be unrecognizably human.
Go back to the first page and re-read my question. I stated that I would answer your question as soon as you answer mine.
All of my questions have been directed at getting an answer to my first question. Instead of giving me a straight-forward honest and direct answer, your tactic has been to obfuscate with excessive verbiage. Now, because I've been forced to consistently press the same question you accuse me of injecting complexity into the discussion?
Tactic? Apparently you think that discussions about morality can be reduced to yes or no answers, how infantile.
Quote:
Just go back to page one, re-read the question and provide a simple answer. It's really not that difficult.
Here is your simple answer, morality is nothing more and nothing less than a code of conduct for a society. It isn't dependent upon some "transcendent eternal creator, since none exist. Morality is a human construct, devised by man to serve man's social needs.
Quote:
More obfuscation.
If you define obfuscation as being an answer you don't like, so be it.
Quote:
A right to liberty can only be inalienable if it is endowed by a creator.
So says a slave owning political rhetorician.
Quote:
Rights granted by the state are subject to being revoked by the state.
Duh.
Quote:
Stop trying to be such a wise A$$ and just answer the question.
Asked and answered.
Quote:
What's true is true. That which is false is false.
A nice saying for a fortune cookie but otherwise utterly meaningless.
Quote:
You say Christianity condoned slavery. Does this mean that those Christians that found no support for owning slaves in the teaching of Christ or New Testament scriptures were wrong?
Oh, they found support for slavery in the teachings of Christ but simply chose to ignore it, just as progressive Christians ignore, gloss over, and reinterpret biblical teachings to fit their religious beliefs to modern realities and rationalism.
Quote:
I certainly won't deny that the issue has been historically controversial. Still, the truth is that it's either right or wrong.
Whoa dude, I thought the truth was the truth and a falsity was false?
Quote:
So why don't you go ahead and lay out the theological and Biblical case for slavery - that is, if such a case can even be made.
1. If "God's" law is transcendent and immutable, then why must we even bother with searching for truth, it should be readily apparent without need of ecclesiastical interpretations, or reinterpretations. There would be no need for the Talmud, myriad versions and translations of the bible, the Hadith or a coterie of wise religious men who assume to interpret and apply this transcendent and immutable law. So what is truth, the moral truth of Papal infallibility, the Truth of Martin Luther or the Truth according to Pat Roberston?
2. Can you point to a single society, untouched by the god of Jews and Christians, whereby the moral code of that society differed to such an extent as to be deem utterly unrecognizable by another society? As an example, a society which draws no distinction between lawful and unlawful homicide, where there is a total absence of honoring of elders or parents, where intra-group theft is condoned, or encouraged, where honesty is not considered a virtue?
I thought this was a pretty standard concept Christian absolutist morality - God can punish me so I'll do whatever I think it wants and pretend it is good.
Lead on maestro...what would give me such a problem explaining?
You claim what whatever God does is morally right, because he is absolutely good.
The Old Testament, as everybody knows, represents one of the most violent gods in history. If God says its okay to kill millions, including women and children, why are we not allowed to? Why do we view our morality as better that your God?
Quote:
So if another Joe Stalin comes along and determines that murdering millions of people is morally acceptable for utilitarian reasons, that would then make it morally acceptable?
Depends if you're Stalin and his followers or not. Clearly Stalin believed the ends justified the means.
[quote]Well, I would certainly agree that American culture has certainly embraced pluralism.
Quote:
I'm going to give you the straight truth: Homosexuality is wrong.
Clearly. There is a reason why the Founders of the U.S. saw fit to keep its citizens armed. "An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man a subject." Any "morality," the system of rules we all agree to live by, that didn't meet or exceeded unnecessarily the needs of the people could be removed by force of the people.
Apparently church scholars on both sides of this argument find support for their position in the Bible.
The difficulty here is not so much that some scholars claim to be church scholars when they are not. It is more that some scholars claim to be scholars when, on the evidence, they never went even to school.
The difficulty here is not so much that some scholars claim to be church scholars when they are not. It is more that some scholars claim to be scholars when, on the evidence, they never went even to school.
Another problem is that some claim to be authorities on who is and isn't scholars when they are not. Let's see some evidence of your educational background and academic achievements which makes you qualified to judge who is and isn't a religious scholar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
