Ralph Reed rejects claim that Jesus was a socialist; Bible is not ‘a religious Communist Manifesto’

  
Via:  Heartland American  •  2 weeks ago  •  521 comments

Ralph Reed rejects claim that Jesus was a socialist; Bible is not ‘a religious Communist Manifesto’
“Yes, we’re called to care for the poor, and the needy, and the infirmed, and the alien, and the stranger, but that call is to the faithful. It calls to those closest to the need to meet that need. Not big government, not bureaucrats in Washington.”

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Ralph Reed rejects claim that Jesus was a socialist; Bible is not ‘a religious Communist Manifesto’



By Michael Gryboski , Christian Post Reporter



131396_w_725.jpg

Conservative Christian leader Ralph Reed has denounced recent comments at a prominent Democratic Party leadership event arguing that the Bible and Jesus promoted socialism.

Speaking with Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham on Monday evening , Reed argued that the Bible is not “a religious Communist Manifesto” and Jesus was not “a Birkenstock-wearing socialist.”

“I don’t think that this is going to sell in the heartland because the good news is Christians in America know their Bible and they know that the Bible teaches that ‘he who does not work shall not eat,’ it talks about the importance of work, and it talks about the importance of being productive,” said Reed.

“Yes, we’re called to care for the poor, and the needy, and the infirmed, and the alien, and the stranger, but that call is to the faithful. It calls to those closest to the need to meet that need. Not big government, not bureaucrats in Washington.”


Ingraham brought up South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a practicing Episcopalian who is in a same-sex marriage who talks openly about his Christian beliefs on the campaign trail.


102230_w_725.jpg

Reed responded that he was waiting for Mayor Buttigieg and his peers to give the biblical justification for legalized late term abortion, which the Democratic presidential hopeful supports.

“Here is what I think people are hungering for. They’re hungering for leaders who can make a connection between their faith and their values and public policy,” continued Reed.

“When it comes to the sanctity of life, and religious freedom, and support for Israel, and the protection of the least among us, and speaking out for the poor and meeting their needs, it’s a question of what is most effective … and what’s closest to those in need, and big government is the last one that will do that.”


Reed argued that this and other faith talk on the part of Democratic leaders and supporters was in response to the 2016 election, when large numbers of religious believers voted Republican.

“They lost the evangelical vote by 65 points, they lost the Catholic vote by 10 points, they lost faithful frequently Mass-attending Catholics by 24 points,” he said.

“They’ve belatedly realized that if their Party kicks voters of faith in the teeth and calls them ‘irredeemable’ and essentially says they’re ‘deplorables,’ that those people might not be drawn to them.”

Reed’s comments came in response to a speech by the Reverend William Barber II at a Democratic National Committee Summer Meeting last week.  


“If someone calls it socialism, then we must compel them to acknowledge that the Bible must then promote socialism because Jesus offered free healthcare to everyone and he never charged a leper a co-pay,” stated Barber.

“The Bible says that a nation will be judged by how it treats the poor, and the sick, and women, and the immigrant. The Bible says that God makes it rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you want to call caring for folk ‘socialism,’ then the Constitution is a socialist document — because it calls us to promote the general welfare and to establish justice.”

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Heartland American
1  seeder  Heartland American    2 weeks ago

“Here is what I think people are hungering for. They’re hungering for leaders who can make a connection between their faith and their values and public policy,” continued Reed.

“When it comes to the sanctity of life, and religious freedom, and support for Israel, and the protection of the least among us, and speaking out for the poor and meeting their needs, it’s a question of what is most effective … and what’s closest to those in need, and big government is the last one that will do that.”



Reed argued that this and other faith talk on the part of Democratic leaders and supporters was in response to the 2016 election, when large numbers of religious believers voted Republican.

“They lost the evangelical vote by 65 points, they lost the Catholic vote by 10 points, they lost faithful frequently Mass-attending Catholics by 24 points,” he said.

“They’ve belatedly realized that if their Party kicks voters of faith in the teeth and calls them ‘irredeemable’ and essentially says they’re ‘deplorables,’ that those people might not be drawn to them.” https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/6894/ralph-reed-rejects-claim-that-jesus-was-a-socialist-bible-is-not-a-religious-communist-manifesto

 
 
 
CB
1.1  CB   replied to  Heartland American @1    2 weeks ago
“They’ve belatedly realized that if their Party kicks voters of faith in the teeth and calls them ‘irredeemable’ and essentially says they’re ‘deplorables,’ that those people might not be drawn to them.

I have only one word for you: TRUMP.

The compulsive daily liar President, who might (try) to lie to God on a daily basis if given a chance. I adjure the believer:

Proverbs 6:16-19 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
16 There are six things which the Lord hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
19 A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.

I ask the believer who reads this does this proverb in any way, shape, or form fit President Donald Trump. Tell the truth and shame the Devil.

Now then, why do you ask anyone to participate in lifting up one that God hates? And, why do you continue to participate in Trump's activities yourself?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  CB @1.1    2 weeks ago

So per those guidelines you should shun every politician not just Trump.

At least he doesn't hate you like Obama did.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  CB @1.1    2 weeks ago

God hates the sins not the sinner.  God does not hate Donald Trump.  God certainly doesn’t appreciate a party that openly rejects Him and those who believe in him.  

 
 
 
CB
1.1.3  CB   replied to  Heartland American @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

Is that God 'talk' or H-A Conservative Right-wing Evangelical 'speak'?

I adjure you in the name of the Lord: Proverbs above says God hates 'a lying tongue' and 'a false witness.' Will you demand President Donald Trump cease his daily lying to the people of this country; or, shall conservatives continue to suffer a strong delusion that the people of this nation do not know a lie when they hear and read 'em?

Case in Point: Who is building a wall on the Southern border? We are! Who is going to pay for it? Mexico!  That is a lie and conservativeland knows it, for sure.

Before you accuse anybody else of anything at all - repair the breach in your own party! Let Donald Trump return to the private sector where he belongs!

 
 
 
CB
1.1.4  CB   replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

President Obama is all gone bye-bye now. Deal with the president you have lying everyday to our faces.

I ask the believer who reads this does this proverb in any way, shape, or form fit President Donald Trump. Tell the truth and shame the Devil.

Now then, why do you ask anyone to participate in lifting up one that God hates? And, why do you continue to participate in Trump's activities yourself?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.5  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @1.1.4    2 weeks ago
President Obama is all gone bye-bye now. Deal with the president you have lying everyday to our faces.

Mustn't we also prepare for the next President we will have?  

I ask the believer who reads this does this proverb in anyway, shape, or form fit President Donald Trump. Tell the truth and shame the Devil. Now then, why do you ask anyone to participate in lifting up one that God hates? And, why do you continue to participate in Trump's activities yourself?

Proverbs 6:16-19 applies to the next President, too.  Lifting up another whom God hates to replace Trump isn't an alternative.  Requiring voters to choose the lesser of two evils won't avoid what God hates.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
Lifting up another whom God hates to replace Trump isn't an alternative.  Requiring voters to choose the lesser of two evils won't avoid what God hates.  

When any religion proves their God exists, I might start to listen to what they claim their God loves or hates. Until then, all they're doing is blowing smoke. Pick a President based on their qualifications instead of what you believe an imaginary wizard in the sky wants or how low the candidate can go in insulting their opponents and everyone's intelligence as this current Commander in-Competent has done.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
God hates the sins not the sinner.  God does not hate Donald Trump.  God certainly doesn’t appreciate a party that openly rejects Him and those who believe in him.

I can't imagine the level of hubris it must take to claim to speak for a God. It really is amazing to see how some believe they can speak for a supposedly omniscient, omnipotent cosmic being that lies outside space and time, and to not only speak for them, but to judge others for them.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.8  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.6    2 weeks ago
When any religion proves their God exists, I might start to listen to what they claim their God loves or hates. Until then, all they're doing is blowing smoke. Pick a President based on their qualifications instead of what you believe an imaginary wizard in the sky wants or how low the candidate can go in insulting their opponents and everyone's intelligence as this current Commander in-Competent has done.

When humans judge humanity then they are raising moral questions.  Even secular atheists are invoking a god when they engage in moral condemnation.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.9  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.7    2 weeks ago

But you would use the words of this same make believe being in a argument.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @1.1.9    2 weeks ago
But you would use the words of this same make believe being in a argument.

Only when someone claiming to live by those words shows by their actions they aren't. All that's doing is holding up a mirror to them.

Have I ever claimed that any of the scriptures I've quoted should be followed or adhered to? I've only ever pointed out that those claiming to follow scripture, and trying to lord it over others because of their supposed bible based moral high ground, often get it very wrong, most likely because of their complete ignorance of actual scripture.

Shakespeare coined the phrase "Hoist with his own petard" (a petard was a small explosive device) which is a phrase meaning someone being blown up by their own grenade. Bible thumpers continually lob their religious grenades at others, all I do is pull the pin and throw them back.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.8    2 weeks ago
Even secular atheists are invoking a god when they engage in moral condemnation.

Total nonsense. Morality is subjective, and that subject is humanity. If it harms humans, it's morally reprehensible. If it helps humans, it's morally acceptable. No God is necessary and atheists have no need to invoke one.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.12  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.11    2 weeks ago
Total nonsense. Morality is subjective, and that subject is humanity. If it harms humans, it's morally reprehensible. If it helps humans, it's morally acceptable. No God is necessary and atheists have no need to invoke one.

Morality is a social contract intended to allow people to live together peacefully.  Moral condemnation requires a moral authority that is independent from an individual and has authority to judge the individual.

Invoking an independent moral authority to judge individual actions and behavior is invoking a god.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.  Whatever weakens the social contract that allows humans to live together peacefully is morally reprehensible.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.12    2 weeks ago
Moral condemnation requires a moral authority that is independent from an individual and has authority to judge the individual.

That's why we have judges and juries and laws decided upon by the majority of those living in the societies the laws govern.

Invoking an independent moral authority to judge individual actions and behavior is invoking a god.

And who is invoking some independent moral authority other than believers?

Whatever weakens the social contract that allows humans to live together peacefully is morally reprehensible.

I agree which is why I reject those who break our secular laws in favor of their supposed divine laws and believe the entire idea of "sin" is anti-human and harmful to society in general.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.11    2 weeks ago

His usual nonsense.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.15  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.13    2 weeks ago
That's why we have judges and juries and laws decided upon by the majority of those living in the societies the laws govern.

Doesn't that suggest government is the secular god?

And who is invoking some independent moral authority other than believers?

Only 'believers' have been morally condemning Trump?

I agree which is why I reject those who break our secular laws in favor of their supposed divine laws and believe the entire idea of "sin" is anti-human and harmful to society in general.

By placing secular laws in the role of moral authority, doesn't that place secular government in the same role as a god?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.16  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.15    2 weeks ago
Doesn't that suggest government is the secular god?

If you want to claim the majority of humans who decide on those laws collectively is the "secular God" you can, but you'd be creating a contradiction in terminology.

Secular: adjective - denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

It would be like saying "dry water". It makes no sense. You can have "dry ice" but water, by its very nature, is wet. Secular society, by its very nature, is apart from any religion or God. You can claim the humans who decide upon local laws are the local "moral authority" which varies greatly depending on location because it is, God just has nothing to do with it unless you live in a theocracy like Iran.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.17  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

Don't dodge the question right in front of your 'face.' Time is up for BS'ing our way through these discussions we seek out.

Former President Obama is done. Sitting President Trump lies every day of his presidency and if you think to defend lying-then you lose your credibility too!

The future president needs to be held to a high Christian standard, for a low Christian standard (for believers) is really no standard at all.

The time is here, Nerm_L., demand honesty from President Trump or choose someone else to take the office. This straddling the fence crap is dead.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.18  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.16    2 weeks ago
If you want to claim the majority of humans who decide on those laws collectively is the "secular God" you can, but you'd be creating a contradiction in terminology.

Secular: adjective - denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

It would be like saying "dry water". It makes no sense. You can have "dry ice" but water, by its very nature, is wet. Secular society, by its very nature, is apart from any religion or God. You can claim the humans who decide upon local laws are the local "moral authority" which varies greatly depending on location because it is, God just has nothing to do with it unless you live in a theocracy like Iran.

The human spirit, by its nature, is spiritual.  The human spirit addresses the human condition, human rights, and human potential.  Secularism has not separated itself from the human spirit; therefore, secularism is spiritual in nature.

Secularism is really a rational spiritual basis for fulfilling the role of a god without theology.  

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.  Secularism replaces a theological god with secular government in the role of god.  Secularism replaces theological morality with secular laws as moral authority.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.19  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @1.1.17    2 weeks ago
The time is here, Nerm_L., demand honesty from President Trump or choose someone else to take the office. This straddling the fence crap is dead.

I didn't vote for Trump.  I didn't choose Trump.  I don't care if Trump remains in office.  And voting against Trump does require a better alternative.

Last election voters were offered a choice between two candidates that failed Proverbs 6: 16-19.  No matter which candidate won the election we would have a President that behaved in a manner God hates.  The supposed choice wasn't a choice at all.

Don't let Democratic candidates off the hook because you hate Trump.  Demand better from both parties.

Don't accept what God hates because of your hate.  That's not what God intended.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.1.20  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @1.1    2 weeks ago

Because he’s 10,000% a better alternative

[deleted]

[Labeling and/or creative name-calling of entire political groups, ideological, religious, cultural, sexual identity / orientation, etc. groups (i.e. Rethuglicans, Libtards, etc), is forbidden.]

No doubt Trump is a badly flawed and arrogant individual. But he’s not proposing to have taxpayers pay for abortions, raise taxes, increase regulations, increase totalitarian control over our lives and businesses, take away our right to keep and bear arms.   

Trump is also the best American president in support of Israel. The President who’s taken the most actions to defend our religious liberties from the endless assault by the Democrats.  

Trump is the only president who hasn’t bent over in submission to the UN, NATO, or other international one world organizations 

so until someone better comes along, I’m sticking with the only president to actually defend and promote this country and the things that made it once great 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.21  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.19    2 weeks ago
I didn't vote for Trump.  I didn't choose Trump.  I don't care if Trump remains in office.  And voting against Trump does require a better alternative.

1. So you won't be voting for Trump in 2020. Good, if so.

2. Better alternative? Can we agree that any one in the Democratic Party line up is not known by the daily lies they pile up?

The last election is gone "see-ya!" too. Time to let 2016 go and look toward the future 2020 voter event for President of the United States.

Hate Trump? I don't hate Donald Trump; I detest and have no use for cowardly complusive and repetitive liars! I can't trust a damn word that comes out of Trump's mouth (Who's Going To Build The Wall? Mexico right.) Well, as you surely know that is a lie still reverberating. President Trump is scheduling (to the best of his ability) the use of American taxpayer money to build a small (minuscule) area of his border wall. A wall he did not want to start with, but it was a tool to get conservative votes.

So don't worry about my so-called hate of Trump; your honest problem is with the "doer," the liar, not those who can't trust this liar to tell the truth.

Check yourself thoroughly for soundness before you vote!

 
 
 
CB
1.1.22  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.20    2 weeks ago

Define, "sticking with the only president to actually defend and promote this country. . . . "

(Can Trump count on your vote in 2020)?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.23  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @1.1.21    2 weeks ago
Check yourself thoroughly for soundness before you vote!

After what Democrats nominated last time, the only thing I can say is piss on that.

I'll work harder to ensure Democrats don't win than I'll work to beat Trump.  You see I don't like Trump or Republicans but I've learned that Democrats cannot be trusted to do the right thing under any circumstances.

If hate is a political requirement then I choose to hate Democrats for their betrayal.  And it's attitudes like yours' that reinforces my resolve.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.24  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.23    2 weeks ago

Whatever. I knew you were blowing smoke all along. Oh well. Another thing I can't stand: BULLSHITTERS WHO WASTE MY TIME.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.25  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @1.1.24    2 weeks ago
Whatever. I knew you were blowing smoke all along. Oh well. Another thing I can't stand: BULLSHITTERS WHO WASTE MY TIME.

Democrats try to throw a guilt trip on me while Democrats absolutely refuse to impeach Trump.  

Democrats are afraid to do the right thing because it might be unpopular or might hurt their chances of winning elections.  Democrats are always up for election; its non-stop campaigning.  Why am I supposed to believe Democrats will ever do the right thing?

You dump a litany of reasons to impeach Trump and then demand I vote for any Democrat because Democrats refuse to do the right thing.  And I'm expected to reward Democrats for being pragmatic bullshitters who are afraid to do the right thing?  Man, that's chutzpah.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.26  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.25    2 weeks ago

Chutzpah, is your outrageous attempt to dazzle me with bullfhit. Nerm_L, cut the BS. I don't suffer from a glamour in any sense of the word. Trump is a cowardly compulsive and repetitive liar, and you think that makes him one special guy. Admit it to yourself at least that an infinite ocean of lies is not a deal breaker for you, and get off the fence -Trump side - before you get metaphorical splinters in your nether regions.

Changing the subject. As for what the democratic House does or not do, well I can only hope they will not listen to Republicans— especially Jim Jordan's or Devin Nunes' recommendations, because those republicans are Trump's rocket fuel! Democrats can't will them all: and, they clearly have not won you over. Enjoy your duration in the Trump alter sphere.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.27  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.18    2 weeks ago
The human spirit, by its nature, is spiritual.

There is more evidence of a humans "aura" than there is of any "human spirit". But neither term is used in science because neither have been empirically proven with any sort of reliable, consistent, repeatable, testable evidence.

The human spirit addresses the human condition, human rights, and human potential.

Human rights are relative, human potential is relative, the supposed human condition is relative, none are objective in any way and therefore cannot be viewed as some "spiritual" monolith agreed on by all. What you speak of are immaterial hopes and dreams, feelings, emotions which are all well and good, but have nothing to do with any actual measurable, definable "spirit".

Secularism is really a rational spiritual basis for fulfilling the role of a god without theology.

No, it is the subjective choices made by man based on thousands of years of trial and error in the attempt to make a peaceful, helpful society for humans to exist in. It has nothing to do with any God and doesn't need any magical wizard in the sky to make it work.

Secularism replaces a theological god with secular government in the role of god.

Believers replaced logic and reason with their own invented invisible wizard to explain away the things they couldn't understand or didn't want to accept.

Secularism replaces theological morality with secular laws as moral authority.

Theological morality is based on very subjective laws developed by humans over many thousands of years. Secular society was here first, it was just hijacked by ignorant men who wanted to justify the selfish imposition of their own desires on humanity. God is nothing but mental training wheels for the ignorant too scared to believe in their own balance. More and more are ditching those training wheels in favor of logic, reason and reality though it will likely take another century before we see the shift move past the half way mark with the majority of humanity rejecting the archaic and useless religions of the world.

The God duck is leaving the building and looks nothing like the secularism that is being left in its wake, we just have to watch where we walk because of all the duck shit it left us with.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.28  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @1.1.26    2 weeks ago
Trump is a cowardly compulsive and repetitive liar ...

Yes he is.  

... and you think that makes him one special guy.

No I don't.

Admit it to yourself at least that an infinite ocean of lies is not a deal breaker for you, and get off the fence -Trump side - before you get metaphorical splinters in your nether regions.

Admit what to myself?  That Trump is a lying, cheating, bullying buffoon who can't string three words together into a coherent thought?  I already know that.  That's why I didn't vote for Trump and won't next time either. 

Just because Trump is a piece of shit didn't make the Democrat's piece of shit any better.  And it won't next election, either.

I've had low expectations for Republicans since they ran Ronald Reagan for President.  I don't expect Republicans to offer anyone better than Trump.  George Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney?  Really?  But that's no excuse for Democrats to offer someone just as bad as Trump.  Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton?  Really?  Obama was a decent guy but he was just another bullshitter, too.

When both Republicans and Democrats quote Ronald Reagan, I know they are all trying to bullshit me.

Changing the subject. As for what the democratic House does or not do, well I can only hope they will not listen to Republicans— especially Jim Jordan's or Devin Nunes' recommendations, because those republicans are Trump's rocket fuel! Democrats can't will them all: and, they clearly have not won you over. Enjoy your duration in the Trump alter sphere.

Impeach Trump already.  Do the right thing.  Get on with it.  

Pragmatic cowardice is not an excuse.  Democrats need to grow a spine.  Any excuse for not doing the right thing is pretty lame.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.29  Drakkonis  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.11    2 weeks ago
Morality is subjective, and that subject is humanity. If it harms humans, it's morally reprehensible. If it helps humans, it's morally acceptable. No God is necessary and atheists have no need to invoke one.

There really isn't a thing called "subjective morality." The real meaning of subjective morality is "whatever I think (or the group thinks) is moral, is moral. Obviously, we can do that, but it isn't really morality when that is all it rests on. This is easily proven. You cannot have one group say it's morally good to kill a daughter for a perceived slight to family honor and another group say that it is immoral. They are mutually opposing moralities and they cannot both be right.

If a father in this country kills his daughter for a slight to family honor, that man is punished because it is against the law. But morally, such a person is reviled publicly not because he broke the law but because it is such an offense to our sense of morality. But suppose you, a citizen of the United States, go to live in a country where they believe it is moral and right to do so? Are you going to now believe it is morally right simply because you now live among a group that thinks it's morally right? Hardly. So let's say you try to educate these people on what is truly moral. What are you going to use as the basis of your justification for condemning their practice? Just because you think it's wrong? Is that what you are going to present as moral authority? Again, hardly. You're likely to get frustrated because all you have is some vague idea that honor killing is just something everyone should know is wrong. That's all "subjective morality" leaves you with to defend your position. 

It gets worse when one group tries to tell the other group they are acting immorally. If morality is no more than what the individual or group thinks, they have no basis for condemning another individual or group for thinking differently. The moment they do they are now saying that morality is not subjective but objective. They are saying that what their group thinks applies to everyone. How can one group tell another group what they are doing is wrong if morality were truly subjective? You can't. But people still tell others they are morally wrong while at the same time defend subjective morality tooth and nail. It's the most illogical thing about our view of morality. It makes no sense and is not logically supportable. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.30  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.29    2 weeks ago
Obviously, we can do that, but it isn't really morality when that is all it rests on.

We do that, as that is all we actually have.

You cannot have one group say it's morally good to kill a daughter for a perceived slight to family honor and another group say that it is immoral.

Well, actually you can and that's exactly what we have, though that supposed "honor" killing is based on a vile bullshit supposedly objective morality from a fucking piece of shit God. Only the belief in a supposed "objective" morality allows them to break the humanity morality and claim it's okay to inflict harm or death on another human for no other reason than some perceived slight to a families "honor" which was taught to them by fucking piece of shit religious leaders.

But suppose you, a citizen of the United States, go to live in a country where they believe it is moral and right to do so? Are you going to now believe it is morally right simply because you now live among a group that thinks it's morally right? Hardly.

You don't have to believe it's moral, because as I said, it's subjective. The people around you think it's moral based on their despicable religion, just like some here claim being gay isn't moral. But it's fucking SUBJECTIVE no matter how you slice it.

So let's say you try to educate these people on what is truly moral.

I would love to educate those in Muslim countries as to what's subjectively moral, just like I'd like to educate many religious conservatives here in America of the same.

It gets worse when one group tries to tell the other group they are acting immorally.

Yeah, especially if that group isn't thinking about what harms or helps humans but what pleases their imagined deity of choice.

If morality is no more than what the individual or group thinks, they have no basis for condemning another individual or group for thinking differently.

Yeah, they do. Like I said, what harms humans or helps humans is the subjectivity needed to make those decisions. Bringing in any outside imaginary force that can break those laws by supposedly telling their followers to kill, rape and pillage the non-believers is merely following whatever individual is interpreting their imagined Gods will which is why we have Islamic extremists and Christian extremists willing to murder for their Gods.

How can one group tell another group what they are doing is wrong if morality were truly subjective? You can't.

"Hey, your religion is hurting people and not helping people, stop it." See, just did it and it wasn't hard at all. You just have to tell each groups imaginary God to fuck off and we can come to some semblance of unity and agreement.

But people still tell others they are morally wrong while at the same time defend subjective morality tooth and nail.

Because that subject is humanity, and if you're harming innocent humans who haven't harmed others, you're a fucking piece of shit and need to be told you are immoral.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.29    2 weeks ago
The real meaning of subjective morality is "whatever I think (or the group thinks) is moral, is moral.

Yes, that is subjective morality.   It is the mores held by a particular group.   In ancient times, the mores held that slavery was an acceptable practice; certainly not immoral to them.   Slavery was, for most groups, considered to be moral.   Nowadays it is rare to find a group that holds slavery as moral.

You cannot have one group say it's morally good to kill a daughter for a perceived slight to family honor and another group say that it is immoral. They are mutually opposing moralities and they cannot both be right.

True, that is an example of conflicting mores where both cannot be objectively true.   The subjective morality of one group holds honor killings to be right while the subjective morality of most other groups considers it immoral.   That is the whole concept of subjective morality — it is the morality of a group.   


Normally people speak of subjective morality and objective morality.   The latter would be moral truth.   The only conceivable source for objective morality would be a sentient entity responsible for our existence — our creator.


If morality is no more than what the individual or group thinks, they have no basis for condemning another individual or group for thinking differently.

And that is the case.   One group can only condemn based on their subjective view of morality.   No group has a handle on objective morality (if that even exists).   Now if someone could actually deliver objective morality (i.e. give us the mores that come from our creator) then that would truly be something of great value.   

Does someone have the rules of objective morality to offer to the world?

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.32  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.20    2 weeks ago

Well said and I didn’t even vote for him in 16 because of questions and fears but based on his policies, judges, taxes, religious liberty since taking office, I will vote for him in 20.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.33  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  CB @1.1.21    2 weeks ago

There is no one in the democrat party primaries that would be a better choice that Trump.  Trump for the most part except for some words and tweets has done most of what Republicans would do/ expect.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.34  Drakkonis  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.30    2 weeks ago
Because that subject is humanity, and if you're harming innocent humans who haven't harmed others, you're a fucking piece of shit and need to be told you are immoral.

Who says harming innocent humans who haven't harmed others is immoral? You? Where does your authority to say it's wrong come from?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.34    2 weeks ago

Morality, best we can tell, is always subjective — it is always defined by a particular group.   One group's mores will contradict those of another.   Lots of disagreement and, historically, this has caused quite a bit of bloodshed.

If someone can find true objective morality and deliver it to the planet, that would be quite an accomplishment.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.36  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.28    2 weeks ago
That's why I didn't vote for Trump and won't next time either. 

Then you won't vote and nothing is gained or appreciated. What good will you be to anyone? To the nation?

Don't try to answer it. Answer it and speak from your heart. Not this rhetoric you are spilling out to me. I am done twisting in the win with UNDECIDED DECIDEDS.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.37  CB   replied to  Heartland American @1.1.33    2 weeks ago

I won't debate the positive contributions of Donald Trump, because I have a real problem corraling them right now. He is all over the place making messes.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.34    2 weeks ago
Where does your authority to say it's wrong come from?  

Excellent question.   Where does the authority for any moral judgement come from?   How can any human being possibly know objective moral truth?

Who, for example, can assert as truth that homosexuality is morally wrong?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.39  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @1.1.36    2 weeks ago
Then you won't vote and nothing is gained or appreciated. What good will you be to anyone? To the nation?

I voted for who I thought should be President with a write in vote.  How can my vote make a difference if my vote isn't counted?

None of the candidates in the 2016 election won a majority of votes.  Clinton received a plurality but she only got 48 pct of the vote. So, those alternative votes did make a difference.

I could (and may) support a political party that can displace the Republican and Democratic Parties.  I don't have to vote Republican or Democrat to contribute and make a difference.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.40  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.38    2 weeks ago

Thanks, but not the question I am asking him. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.41  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.40    2 weeks ago

It is the questions I am asking you.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.42  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.39    2 weeks ago

Well said. I doubt I'll be voting either Democrat or Republican, either. Kinda like choosing between short, fat clowns or tall thin ones. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.43  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.41    2 weeks ago

No offense intended, TiG, but we've had this conversation what? Three or four times now? It so far looks as if you have nothing new to add and I know I don't so I'm not really interested in doing it again. Sorry. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.43    2 weeks ago

Similarly you are still claiming that there is no such thing as subjective morality.   Yet you will, I predict, never provide any means by which morality can be applied except as subjective morality.

So if you wish to make your same old claims then do not be surprised if I make my same old arguments.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.45  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.39    2 weeks ago

Then to hell with it. Your vote will likely be a waste of time. And, in service of nothing. It is your right to do so. And, my right to disregard your BS about going forward. We need never communicate about presidential republicans or democrats again.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.46  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.42    2 weeks ago

I need to start a list. . . Done!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.47  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.44    2 weeks ago
So if you wish to make your same old claims then do not be surprised if I make my same old arguments.

Um, yeah. Kinda why I declined, you know?

Right now, what I am interested in talking to DP about is why everyone who claims that morality is subjective acts as if it is not. It's pretty obvious that DP doesn't just have subjective feelings about what he thinks is moral. It's pretty obvious that what he thinks is moral applies to the people he denigrates, else what grounds would he have for denigrating them? What I find fascinating is that this is objectively obvious, yet he will still claim that morality is subjective, even though is actions prove that he thinks they are really objective. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.48  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.47    2 weeks ago

There is no mystery as to why an individual who holds a particular subjective morality would find those who violate that morality to be immoral.   

His actions do not mean he thinks his morality is objective.   He just thinks he is right.   That is how subjective morality works.   Those in the group hold that they are right.

Pretty much like other things like politics and religion.  Those of a particular partisan bent think they are right and the others are assholes.   Those of a particular religious belief think they hold truth and everyone else is in a sorry state.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.49  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.38    2 weeks ago
[1.] Where does the authority for any moral judgement come from?   [2.] How can any human being possibly know objective moral truth? [3.] Who, for example, can assert as truth that homosexuality is morally wrong?

1. Outside of or from inside of oneself.

2. Objective truth is what oneself considers it to be.

3. Oneself. (Acting with and/or as the Moralist.)

4. And, what do you have to add: Are you a Moralist in your day to day life?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.49    2 weeks ago

I wonder if Drakk will weigh in on your opinion. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.51  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  CB @1.1.37    2 weeks ago

I disagree.  I like most of what he’s promised and done so far and can live with the fact that the very reasons I will vote for him are largely why many on the progressive left won’t. We are ready for the campaign and are ready to say, do, contribute, volunteer whatever we can to have four more years of#45 as our President.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.52  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.50    2 weeks ago

Why not weigh in on my opinion without waiting around, TiG? 'Drakk' goes and comes—. Frankly, Drakk does not to address me on the boards much. Again, you can go for it.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.53  CB   replied to  Heartland American @1.1.51    2 weeks ago

I started a personal list today . . . Heartand American, you're on it. It's for "Trump voters" and "Those Others."

I am going to do a tally before next election 2020. See where "we" stand on NT.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.54  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.48    2 weeks ago
His actions do not mean he thinks his morality is objective.

Not consciously probably, but he certainly behaves as if it is, regardless of whether he thinks morality is subjective or not.  When a person or a group take action against others, they don't do so simply because they think they are right. That is not how it works. They think that what they believe is moral justifies their actions. When the people ask, why are you doing this to us, the response is some version of, it is moral that we do so. They aren't referring to their opinions. They are referring to something they feel applies to everyone. If they didn't feel it applied to everyone why would they take the action in the first place? 

When DP says...

Because that subject is humanity, and if you're harming innocent humans who haven't harmed others, you're a fucking piece of shit and need to be told you are immoral.

He isn't expressing a morality he believes is subjective. He is expressing a morality he believes applies to the other guy, regardless of his profession that morality is subjective. But still, he claims morality is subjective, hence my question. Where does the authority to say it's wrong come from? Simply your personal opinion? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.55  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.50    2 weeks ago
I wonder if Drakk will weigh in on your opinion. 

Nope.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.56  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.7    2 weeks ago
I can't imagine the level of hubris it must take to claim to speak for a God.

Less than it takes to tell other Americans they are "voting against their own interests".

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.57  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.20    2 weeks ago

[delete]

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.58  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.56    2 weeks ago

Claiming to speak for the grandest possible entity, the creator of everything seems like it would be at the pinnacle of hubris.   How does one top that?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.59  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.58    2 weeks ago
Claiming to speak for the grandest possible entity, the creator of everything seems like it would be at the pinnacle of hubris.   How does one top that?

The "speaking for God" claim is based on writings already accepted by hundreds of millions of people for thousands of years.

The "vote against your own interests" claim is based on 25 years experience living with their mom while never having actually visited the place they're talking about.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.60  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.52    2 weeks ago

Because I wanted to see if Drakk would weigh in.   Should have been obvious from my comment.

From what I see, you equate subjective moral truth with objective moral truth.   For example, what an individual considers to be moral truth is, per you, objective moral truth.  Not much to talk about with that view.   I figured Drakk would disagree on the grounds that he views objective morality to be the only morality and that its source is God.   (Although God then seems to communicate different mores to different groups and indeed to different people, so ....)

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.61  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.54    2 weeks ago
When a person or a group take action against others, they don't do so simply because they think they are right. That is not how it works. They think that what they believe is moral justifies their actions.

That is what I mean by morally right.   If one group thinks its mores are right it naturally does not think said mores apply only to them, but to everyone.   And mores (all mores) justify actions so there is no difference in your distinction.  Just like those who believe in a particular religion as truth think it is true for everyone (and thus those who hold other beliefs are considered to be misguided).   For example, it is unlikely for a devout Christian to hold that Islam might be closer to divine truth.

He isn't expressing a morality he believes is subjective. 

Oh I would not be so sure about that.   I suspect DP would recognize that 'harming innocent humans who haven't harmed others' is by default a statement of subjective morality;  he probably would also state that if this is not part of objective morality (should that exist beyond mere concept) then it should be.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.62  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.59    2 weeks ago
The "speaking for God" claim is based on writings already accepted by hundreds of millions of people for thousands of years.

Yes, and the 'word of God' is thus all over the map and contradictory.   You are quite aware that anyone who claims to speak for God is claiming to channel truth from the grandest possible entity.   That individual is navigating through all those writings for thousands of years and claiming that his/her interpretation is divine truth.    Some even go so far as to claim God speaks directly to them.

If one is simply parroting what ancient men wrote in a particular passage or parroting what a holy authority stated then that person is not 'speaking for God'.   Speaking for God occurs when one declares knowledge of divine truth (and that includes informing others about what is in God's 'mind').

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.63  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.59    2 weeks ago

Exactly. Paraphrasing a portion of the Bible is not speaking for God.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.64  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.20    2 weeks ago
Because he’s 10,000% a better alternative than the Godless Communists and Marxist Fascist baby killers in the Democratic Party.

The more extreme and ridiculous one's claims the less likely anyone will find the claimant credible.   Ridiculous rhetoric encourages thinking people to disregard anything else offered by the claimant.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.65  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.63    2 weeks ago
Paraphrasing a portion of the Bible is not speaking for God.  

LOL   Likely not what Jack meant.

I agree with you.  Paraphrasing a portion of the Bible is an act of interpretation taken by an individual.   And, generally speaking, individuals tend to interpret the exact same passage differently.   

Now if an individual reads a passage and declares divine truth, then that person is speaking for God because they are claiming that their particular interpretation is exactly what is in God's 'mind'.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.66  Nerm_L  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.29    2 weeks ago
There really isn't a thing called "subjective morality." The real meaning of subjective morality is "whatever I think (or the group thinks) is moral, is moral. Obviously, we can do that, but it isn't really morality when that is all it rests on. This is easily proven. You cannot have one group say it's morally good to kill a daughter for a perceived slight to family honor and another group say that it is immoral. They are mutually opposing moralities and they cannot both be right.

IMO part of the problem is that cultural norms are confused with morality.  I believe that has arisen in western cultures because of the secular need to place government in the role of god and the need to use law as moral authority.  Most laws are about reinforcing and protecting cultural norms rather than addressing moral questions.

Objective morality doesn't mean that the source of morality is an independent authority.  Objective morality means the morality is universally recognized and accepted across cultures.  Fundamental morality deals with questions of sins.  In western cultures those sins are typically universally recognized as lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride.  When the actions of individuals or interactions between individuals are motivated by sin then the action is considered immoral.  

Cultural norms are social standards of acceptable and expected behavior within a culture.  Cultural norms are not universal since each culture has its own social norms.  Cultural norms evolve over time as needed to allow people within a culture to live peacefully with each other.  So, cultural norms are not quite subjective, either.

When a separate authority whose province is regulating sin assumes the role of authority for regulating cultural norms then the result is typically a theocratic form of government and a state religion becomes a political ideology.  When the authority whose province is regulating cultural norms assumes the role of regulating sin then the result is typically a tyrannical form of government where government behaves as a religion (political ideology becomes religion) and laws become the moral doctrine.

IMO the distinction between morality and cultural norms is why separation of church and state is important.  The church should not be allowed to act as the authority for cultural norms.  And the state should not be allowed to act as the authority for morality.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.67  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.34    2 weeks ago
Who says harming innocent humans who haven't harmed others is immoral? You? Where does your authority to say it's wrong come from?

It's called consensus. A human (one of the subjects of the subjectivity) suggests that we make a law that says it's immoral and illegal to rape children. Then, the majority of other humans in that area agree and come to a consensus and adopt that law as the law of the land. No God necessary. In fact, it takes some human with a belief in God to suggest that what their God wants is to take innocent children and sacrifice them to their God as if that would make it happy, completely against the primary basis of subjective human morality, which has been done throughout history, from the worshipers of Molech and Baal to the Inca's and Mayans across the ocean. All their human sacrifice was supposedly to appease the Gods they worshiped.

We have absolutely zero evidence of any exterior moral authority, so the only moral authority must come from humans. Humans wrote the bible, humans wrote the Koran and the bhagavad gita and every other religious document known to exist. All supposed morality held within is, as far as anyone can prove, human in origin. If anyone would like to claim otherwise then please present the evidence both proving your higher moral authority exists and that the morality you dispense on its behalf is actually this invisible imperceptible beings will. Until then, its all subjective no matter how much you proclaim it isn't.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.68  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.67    2 weeks ago
We have absolutely zero evidence of any exterior moral authority, so the only moral authority must come from humans. Humans wrote the bible, humans wrote the Koran and the bhagavad gita and every other religious document known to exist. All supposed morality held within is, as far as anyone can prove, human in origin. If anyone would like to claim otherwise then please present the evidence both proving your higher moral authority exists and that the morality you dispense on its behalf is actually this invisible imperceptible beings will. Until then, its all subjective no matter how much you proclaim it isn't.

Morality deals with motives and intent.  Religions refer to immoral motives and intents as sins.  We have no evidence that humans created lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride.  The sins are objective and universal; therefore, the moralities to regulate those sins are also objective and universal.

Killing another human is illegal according to social convention.  But determining whether or not the killing was immoral requires determining the motives and intent for killing.  The distinctions between the various degrees of homicide and punishment are based upon motive and intent; a moral judgement of the killing.

Cultural norms and social conventions regulate the actions of individuals.  Morality regulates the motives and intents for the actions of individuals.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.69  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.67    2 weeks ago
If anyone would like to claim otherwise then please present the evidence both proving your higher moral authority exists and that the morality you dispense on its behalf is actually this invisible imperceptible beings will. Until then, its all subjective no matter how much you proclaim it isn't.

Exactly.  Having made the same point and request myself several times in the past, I predict your request will be ignored.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.70  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.60    2 weeks ago

4. And, what do you have to add: Are you a Moralist in your day to day life?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.71  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.65    2 weeks ago
LOL   Likely not what Jack meant.

In fact what I did mean.....

It is not hubris to state that God hates/doesn't hate something when that statement clearly agrees with hundreds or thousands of years of religious teachings....which is what the original accusation cited.  See @1.1.2.

So statements like "God hates the sins not the sinner" or "God does not hate Donald Trump" are not examples of hubris and are not attempts to "speak for God".

Further, the hypocrisy of people accusing anyone else of hubris while telling people they've never met that they "vote against their own interests" is so large that it must be measured in parsecs.   

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.72  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.67    2 weeks ago
If anyone would like to claim otherwise then please present the evidence both proving your higher moral authority exists and that the morality you dispense on its behalf is actually this invisible imperceptible beings will. Until then, its all subjective no matter how much you proclaim it isn't.

Humanity exists as a result of an unbroken chain of the events since the Big Bang.  No alternative chain of events would have resulted in the existence of humanity.  The existence of humanity is a direct result of the Big Bang.  And the unbroken chain of events has made humanity what it is.

Humanity did not create itself.  And humanity did not create the intrinsic traits and behaviors universally exhibited by humans.  The Big Bang made humans what they are.  Whatever is responsible for the Big Bang is also responsible for the universal intrinsic traits and behaviors exhibited by humans.

The contention is that whatever is responsible for the Big Bang is God.  If physics, alone, is responsible for the Big Bang then physics is God.  Physics, as God, is responsible for the universal intrinsic traits and behaviors exhibited by humans and physics, as God, provides the objective authority to regulate those intrinsic traits and behaviors.  Physics, as God, made humans as they are so physics, as God, is the objective authority to regulate morality.

What is the physics of morality?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.73  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.62    2 weeks ago
If one is simply parroting what ancient men wrote in a particular passage or parroting what a holy authority stated then that person is not 'speaking for God'.

Excellent.  I'll let you explain that to the person who leveled the accusations originally.  Best of luck with that.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.74  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.68    2 weeks ago
Religions refer to immoral motives and intents as sins.  We have no evidence that humans created lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride.  The sins are objective and universal

Nonsense. Without humans, none of those "sins" would mean a thing. They are all designed entirely for humans by humans. If you have evidence otherwise please present it instead of just stating your biased opinion.

Killing another human is illegal according to social convention.  But determining whether or not the killing was immoral requires determining the motives and intent for killing. 

What it takes is a decision made by a judge or jury of the killers peers. We have no evidence of any divine intervention in the affairs of man, zero, zilch, nada. Present proof otherwise or simply admit that it's your opinion that there is some objective morality.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.75  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @1.1.21    2 weeks ago
1. So you won't be voting for Trump in 2020. Good, if so.

I didn't vote for him in 2016.  Whether or not I vote for him in 2020 depends entirely on whom you nominate to oppose him.

2. Better alternative? Can we agree that any one in the Democratic Party line up is not known by the daily lies they pile up?

That does not make them a better alternative.  Donald Trump is not actively attempting to double my taxes so he can take away my healthcare.  Bernie Sanders will.  Elizabeth Warren will.  Kamala Harris will.  Corey Booker will.

I can't stand Donald Trump.  But if my choice is either Trump or one of these nutjobs, I'm buying one of those stupid MAGA hats.

If you want to see Donald Trump gone, fine.  I'm on board. Nominate a sensible human to replace him.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.76  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.55    2 weeks ago

Then, that happened.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.77  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.74    2 weeks ago
Nonsense. Without humans, none of those "sins" would mean a thing. They are all designed entirely for humans by humans. If you have evidence otherwise please present it instead of just stating your biased opinion.

That is correct.  Sins are universal motivations and intents for actions and behaviors of humans.

Yes, other creatures exhibit similar actions and behaviors but are the motivations and intents for actions and behaviors by other creatures the same as humans?  Do other creatures sin [as shorthand] in the same manner as humans?

What it takes is a decision made by a judge or jury of the killers peers. We have no evidence of any divine intervention in the affairs of man, zero, zilch, nada. Present proof otherwise or simply admit that it's your opinion that there is some objective morality.

But a consideration of motives and intent is a moral judgement.  A judge and jury attempts to make the moral judgement objective rather than subjective.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.78  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.75    2 weeks ago
If you want to see Donald Trump gone, fine.  I'm on board. Nominate a sensible human to replace him.

I'm with you on account of this. As you are aware, I only get one vote, too! Unfortunately, I am not on the "nominating" committee to appoint the Democratic Party presidential candidate. I am 'hoping' right along with you—assuming you are!

Let me be extremely clear: A person, a man, who will lie to your face every day with impunity is a dangerous man. A leader, a president, who does the same is an extremely dangerous man. Couple that man with a 'last ditch effort' to make drastic changes to the world and you can imagine an additional four years of chicanery, intrigue, and world-class chaos. Moreover, remember this: Donald Trump is a "wanted man" looking to stay in office to avoid a 'day' with law enforcement.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.79  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.70    2 weeks ago

Given I chose to not answer a question about me, asking again will get the same response.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.80  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.72    2 weeks ago
Humanity exists as a result of an unbroken chain of the events since the Big Bang

You just keep repeating yourself so this is going nowhere. I never disagreed with your statements about the "unbroken chain of events" but you give no logical reasoning as to why I should believe we were "supposed to" exist or were some external things plan that could be considered an objective arbiter of morality. Until you can show proof of one or another external entity, then you are just trying to sell others your opinion which isn't worth snot without evidence. If Allah is that moral authority, then according to the Koran, killing all the non-believing infidels is "moral". From a subjective humanist morality perspective it doesn't matter what God says its okay to murder, rape, pillage or enslave humans, all would be considered morally reprehensible.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.81  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.77    2 weeks ago
A judge and jury attempts to make the moral judgement objective rather than subjective.

No, they don't. They are bound by the law, and told so by the judge in no uncertain terms. Those laws were created by human consensus. Why is this so fricking difficult for some to understand? Can animals sin? Of course not, they aren't humans and thus subject to our subjective morality. You're adding the term "intent" which just defines the motives for an action, and our laws take intent into consideration thus the laws collectively agreed to conclude that some motives or intent in the harm of humans makes a difference as to the punishments we decide upon.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.82  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.80    2 weeks ago
You just keep repeating yourself so this is going nowhere. I never disagreed with your statements about the "unbroken chain of events" but you give no logical reasoning as to why I should believe we were "supposed to" exist or were some external things plan that could be considered an objective arbiter of morality. 

You requested evidence as a prima facie requirement for consideration of the contention of an objective authority for morality.  

Since you object to 'supposed to' then the thought can be restated as the existence of humanity would be the expected result of the unbroken chain of events.  By observing the unbroken chain of events the existence of humanity would be expected; the existence of humanity would not be an anomalous result of the unbroken chain of events.

Until you can show proof of one or another external entity, then you are just trying to sell others your opinion which isn't worth snot without evidence.

The contention is that whatever is responsible for the Big Bang is God.  Everything within the universe is a direct result of the Big Bang.  Everything we observe today is directly linked to the Big Bang so whatever is responsible for the Big Bang is responsible for everything we observe today.

Until you can show proof of one or another external entity, then you are just trying to sell others your opinion which isn't worth snot without evidence. 

Since direct physical evidence is not available then it is necessary to rely on other types of evidence.  A demand for proof doesn't allow you to dictate what types of evidence may be utilized.

If Allah is that moral authority, then according to the Koran, killing all the non-believing infidels is "moral". From a subjective humanist morality perspective it doesn't matter what God says its okay to murder, rape, pillage or enslave humans, all would be considered morally reprehensible.

A moral judgement would require examination of the motivations and intents for killing.  Do not confuse a legal judgement based on social convention with moral judgement.

Actions, alone, are not moral or immoral.  That's why humans do not morally judge the actions of other creatures.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.83  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.79    2 weeks ago

Convenient. Well, I can look at the preponderance of evidence in your body of comments (across NT) as statement you consider appeals to authority to be fallacious; so, by process of elimination individuals who take your stance to question everything may decide for him self or herself what is right or wrong. Question answered in the affirmative!

I am going with my conclusion. (Mystery solved.)

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.84  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.71    2 weeks ago
So statements like "God hates the sins not the sinner" or "God does not hate Donald Trump" are not examples of hubris and are not attempts to "speak for God".

So you are interpreting the quoted claims as:

  • 'hundreds or thousands of years of religious teachings' support the idea that God hates the sins not the sinner
  • 'hundreds or thousands of years of religious teachings' support the idea that God does not hate Donald Trump

... not as they are written.   

Okay, so to you this is not really a claim of "God hates the sins, not the sinner", etc. but merely "I believe God hates the sins, not the sinner based on what my religion has taught me".    Not really a claim that this is what God holds as true, just stating a belief.    

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.85  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.83    2 weeks ago
I am going with my conclusion.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.86  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.61    2 weeks ago

I think you're dancing around the elephant in the room. The point is, no matter whether one thinks morality is subjective or objective, we seem to be unable to treat it as anything but objective most of the time. Why would that be? I think the answer is pretty simple and I also think the answer is backed up by the rest of what we observe in the universe. 

I don't know how many laws we have identified in our observation of this universe and what goes on inside it, but I bet it's an impressive number. Curiously, when I did a search on the subject I didn't find anything really useful. It seems that no one has really taken a stab at trying to find out how many there are. 

Anyway, I'm sure there's a lot. The point, however, is that I think anyone who stops to think about it would find it curious that everything in the universe, including us, are governed by laws that cannot be broken. I cannot pass through a solid object in a ghostly fashion, for instance.  A rock cannot ignore gravity. The speed of light can't just decide to do something different. The laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken.

The curious thing, though, is that the one thing in all the universe that appears to be different from everything else is morality. This doesn't compute. As far as I can tell, morality alone doesn't follow such a pattern. Or, more accurately, if morality is a law like everything else, we seem to be able to break it in a way we cannot with any other law existent. 

But is morality a law like the rest? It seems implausible that it would not be, given the nature of the rest of the universe. And regardless of whether we feel morality is subjective, regardless that in observing morality it seems we do handle it subjectively, we can't seem to help but act as if it is objective. And rightly so. If we didn't act as if morality were objective, what kind of world do you think would result? If people thought morality was subjective, and acted that way, what do you suppose the result would be? 

Let me repeat that. If people thought morality was subjective, and acted that way, what do you suppose the result would be? To be clear, I mean acting in a manner different than what we currently do. For instance, somone who doesn't think there's anything wrong with having sex with a child would not be opposed because, hey, that's how his morality rolls. You wouldn't be able to say, well the child doesn't want it or it hurts the child in some way because then you'd be imposing some standard on the situation and introducing objective morals. If morality were truly subjective and we acted that way, we'd still be beating each other with sticks and living in caves.  

No, the evidence seems clear to me that there is an objective morality and I think it's a law. No culture has ever espoused selfishness over selflessness and for obvious reasons. That we can be selfish doesn't negate this law. A society where it's members were totally selfish could not be a society. The more selfless the members of a society are, the greater that society is likely to be. 

And so, my comments to DP. The idea that morality is subjective is ridiculous to me, given how we treat them as objective in our actions. It seems to me that the basis for saying they are subjective rests solely on the fact that we as a species largely don't agree on what is moral. That doesn't make morality subjective. No more than three blind men determining that an elephant is a snake, a tree or a broom. The most likely conclusion is that we suck at determining what is moral. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.87  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.66    2 weeks ago
Objective morality doesn't mean that the source of morality is an independent authority.  Objective morality means the morality is universally recognized and accepted across cultures.

I disagree. Objective:

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

An objective morality would be that selflessness in a society works better than a society where it's members are largely selfish. It is not a matter of opinion or convention. It doesn't matter whether or not this recognized or accepted. Those are not reasons why selflessness works better than selfishness. You could not have a functioning society based on selfishness even if you universally recognized and accepted it as moral. We didn't come up with this. It isn't based on our authority as thinking individuals. It doesn't work this way because we decided it does. Therefore, it must be external in some way. 

Another way in which your definition doesn't work is that, potentially, anything could be considered moral. All cultures would have to do is agree concerning the morality. That erases the meaning of objective. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.88  Drakkonis  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.67    2 weeks ago
It's called consensus. A human (one of the subjects of the subjectivity) suggests that we make a law that says it's immoral and illegal to rape children. Then, the majority of other humans in that area agree and come to a consensus and adopt that law as the law of the land.

I see. Then, by this argument, these humans could make it a law of the land that raping children moral and legal and it would actually be moral? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.89  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.20    2 weeks ago
But he’s not proposing to have taxpayers pay for abortions

Nor should he, since it's already illegal. 

raise taxes

Tariffs are taxes. And how does he propose to pay off the debt in 4 years? By not raising taxes and increasing spending? Must be that new donny math. 

increase regulations

Fine with me, then those that want the regulations gone can live in the filth that they endorse. I am looking forward to Trump Tower Three Mile Island. 

increase totalitarian control over our lives and businesses

"I hereby ORDER all business's to STOP doing business with China!!!!!"

---- Donald Trump... 

Sorry, what was that you were saying? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.90  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.63    2 weeks ago

Exactly. Paraphrasing a portion of the Bible is not speaking for God.  

Yet somehow, violating every single thing in the bible makes trump a man of God... Love how that works. Atheists are more Christlike than trump is. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.91  MrFrost  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

At least he doesn't hate you like Obama did.

Obama is a Christian, and a far better one that trump is. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.92  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.51    2 weeks ago
I like most of what he’s promised and done so far and can live with the fact that the very reasons I will vote for him are largely why many on the progressive left won’t.

Then don't even think that you have the moral high ground. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.93  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

God hates the sins not the sinner.  God does not hate Donald Trump.  God certainly doesn’t appreciate a party that openly rejects Him and those who believe in him.  

There are no Christians that support trump. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.94  Nerm_L  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.87    2 weeks ago
Another way in which your definition doesn't work is that, potentially, anything could be considered moral. All cultures would have to do is agree concerning the morality. That erases the meaning of objective. 

By your definition -

Objective:  (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

As I indicated earlier, morality deals with regulating motivations and intents which religions recognize as sins.  The sins [for shorthand] are recognized across societies and even across religions.  When disparate cultures, societies, and religions recognize a common set of sins and the need to regulate those sins then how can that morality be subjective?

The sins of lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride are recognized as needing regulation by cultures around the world.  And human actions motivated by sins are considered immoral around the world.  When Hindus and Mormons recognize the same sins and the need to regulate those sins then how can that not be objective?

Laws vary widely across cultures and societies.  But I contend morality does not vary widely across cultures and societies because human nature is the same wherever humans are found. 

My definition is based upon morality regulating human nature.  Laws regulate human behavior according to cultural social standards. But morality regulates the motivations for engaging in a human behavior.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.95  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.56    2 weeks ago

Good point!  We hear that a lot from the left to the working and middle class.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.96  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.88    2 weeks ago
Then, by this argument, these humans could make it a law of the land that raping children moral and legal and it would actually be moral?

It would be moral in their minds, but to do so would require breaking one of the two basic human subjective morality requirements, not harming humans being immoral, helping humans being moral. We still have some cultures marrying off girls as young as 12 to grown adult men, some into their 60's, and those cultures consider that moral, the mothers and fathers willingly giving their young daughters as property to the highest bidders. But from a humanist moral point of view that would be considered immoral because its harming a human child against their will. Most societies have, as a collective group, decided on laws restricting such behavior but all those laws and the supposed morality of them come from humans and are subjective.

There is no definitive external objective measuring stick with which to say "This is moral" that all humans accept. Many religions come up with their own definitions of sin and morality and all of them believe their morality is objective, that their God created everything and thus is the arbiter of morality. But the fact that there are dozens of disparate religions with differing definitions for their sins and morality means it is clearly subjective, there is no universal litmus test for objective morality.

There are many people who consider the insurgent fighters in their countries fighting the infidel invaders "moral" and even heroes, while we view them as terrorists. If that's not subjective, then what is it? How can we claim one imagined God is the moral authority when people worship all sorts of Gods all over the planet, how do you expect them to accept your supposed "objective" morality?

So, we either all have to agree on who and what the external moral authority is so we can call it "objective", or we have to accept that morality is in fact subjective to the humans who declare for themselves, whether because of the deity they've chosen or not, what is considered moral.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.97  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.84    2 weeks ago
Okay, so to you this is not really a claim of "God hates the sins, not the sinner", etc. but merely "I believe God hates the sins, not the sinner based on what my religion has taught me".    Not really a claim that this is what God holds as true, just stating a belief.

"God hates the sins, not the sinners" is consistent with around 2000 years of Christian teaching.  So it's certainly not hubris to believe it. 

Donald Trump most definitely falls into the "sinner" category.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.98  Freedom Warrior  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.91    2 weeks ago

 At least I don’t have to even spend a moment taking that seriously 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.99  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.88    2 weeks ago
Then, by this argument, these humans could make it a law of the land that raping children moral and legal and it would actually be moral? 

This turns us back to the practice of honor killings, slavery, etc.   To the group, these practices are moral.   The only morality that human beings have observed thus far is subjective morality (mores of a particular group).    [ Note:   the groups are hierarchic and overlap which makes this a bit more complex.  ]

It is a stretch to argue for (implicitly distinguished and superior) objective morality if you cannot present it.   It is not difficult to argue that subjective morality exists because it is all around us.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.100  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.94    2 weeks ago

LOL. I'm having difficulty in determining whether we are in agreement or not : ) 

It seems that, generally, we are in agreement. However, considering what I think of morality and what I feel about it, the way you describe it seems, I dunno, sort of weak. I mean, I don't think the way you put it states this strongly enough. 

Laws regulate human behavior according to cultural social standards. But morality regulates the motivations for engaging in a human behavior.

I have doubts whether the two can be separated like this. I think mores and laws come from morality, I think. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.101  Drakkonis  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.96    2 weeks ago
It would be moral in their minds, but to do so would require breaking one of the two basic human subjective morality requirements, not harming humans being immoral, helping humans being moral.

Uh, don't you see the problem with this statement? You are presenting what you call subjective morality requirements as if they are objective. How can you use "requirement" and "subjective to describe the same standard? If it is subjective, it cannot be a requirement. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.102  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.97    2 weeks ago
"God hates the sins, not the sinners" is consistent with around 2000 years of Christian teaching.  So it's certainly not hubris to believe it. 

Now we are on a completely different discussion: belief vs. declaration of truth.   I agree it is not hubris to believe this.   It is hubris to declare this as God's truth:  that would be speaking for the grandest possible entity.   Even if an individual can point to scripture, that presumes not only that the individual's interpretation is spot on but that the words read actually express the position of the grandest possible entity.   

Believing something true allows for all the human mistakes that go into the belief.   Claiming truth implicitly declares that the claimant actually has nailed certain truth ... and in this case the truth is the mind of God.   That, now, is hubris and quite likely of the highest form.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.103  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.99    2 weeks ago
This turns us back to the practice of honor killings, slavery, etc.   To the group, these practices are moral.   The only morality that human beings have observed thus far is subjective morality (mores of a particular group).

This isn't much of an argument. Basically, it's just an observation that different groups have different morals and doesn't go any further. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.104  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.86    2 weeks ago
The point is, no matter whether one thinks morality is subjective or objective, we seem to be unable to treat it as anything but objective most of the time.

I think most people would agree with you on this.   Go to any group holding a distinguished subjective morality (e.g. Muslims who support honor killings) and they will almost certainly behave as though their subjective morality is necessarily right — as if it were objective truth.

The curious thing, though, is that the one thing in all the universe that appears to be different from everything else is morality. 

Actually you might as well generalize this to behavior.  Human beings are limited in our behavior by our physical bodies and our environment.  But within those constraints we can (and some have done) do what most would consider the most immoral of things.   So the rules for our behavior seem to be unwritten.   This is the argument for free will — it appears as though we are free to do whatever is possible for us to do.   But what makes you so sure that behavior is not governed by the laws of physics?   Just because it is too complex for us to (currently) identify the laws in effect?   If you think about it, human beings are composed of atoms which are composed of particles which likely are composed of 'energy' which itself may be composed of something even more basic.   Physics governs all of this, so why would you think that the complex construct of the human brain somehow no longer follows the rules of physics?

If people thought morality was subjective, and acted that way, what do you suppose the result would be?

They would abide by the mores and values of their social / cultural groups.   Pretty much what we observe.

You wouldn't be able to say, well the child doesn't want it or it hurts the child in some way because then you'd be imposing some standard on the situation and introducing objective morals.

This does not make sense to me.   How could a mere human being introduce objective mores?   Human beings are the source of subjective mores, but we are not and cannot be the source of objective morality.   All that we can do is find the behavior to be immoral by our mores and condemn it accordingly.   And that is what we seem to do.

No, the evidence seems clear to me that there is an objective morality and I think it's a law. 

What evidence?   The closest thing you go to evidence is noting that there must be some overall governing morality for behavior because all of nature seems to be governed by laws.   To that I asked why you think human behavior is not governed by those same laws?   

And so, my comments to DP. The idea that morality is subjective is ridiculous to me, given how we treat them as objective in our actions. 

You find that morality cannot be subjective because we treat our own subjective mores as though they were objective.   You see the differences in mores yet still claim this is objective morality.   

It seems to me that the basis for saying they are subjective rests solely on the fact that we as a species largely don't agree on what is moral. That doesn't make morality subjective. No more than three blind men determining that an elephant is a snake, a tree or a broom. The most likely conclusion is that we suck at determining what is moral. 

Yes, it makes great sense that human beings suck at determining what is objectively moral.   That probably could only be done by our creator.   So, in lieu of direction by said creator, human beings roll their own subjective morality.   We do suck at it, but it would seem (based on the evidence) that we have no other choice.


Now if someone could actually deliver objective morality that would help.   Seems to me that someone who argues that objective morality exists would be able to present same.   After all, if it exists but nobody can get it, it might as well not exist.   Right?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.105  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.103    2 weeks ago
This isn't much of an argument. Basically, it's just an observation that different groups have different morals and doesn't go any further. 

It is a great argument given what I am arguing.

I am arguing that the only morality we have ever evidenced is subjective morality.   You can counter that argument by giving evidence of objective morality.   Saying 'but there just must be objective morality' (and equivalent) is not evidence of objective morality.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.106  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.102    2 weeks ago
It is hubris to declare this as God's truth:  that would be speaking for the grandest possible entity.   Even if an individual can point to scripture, that presumes not only that the individual's interpretation is spot on but that the words read actually express the position of the grandest possible entity.

This doesn't necessarily follow. If there is a God and this God has a truth and He tells this truth to someone and commands that someone to tell others, that is not hubris. That's just someone doing what they were told to do. To claim it is hubris would necessitate that the only proper communication of God's truth is for God to impart His truth to each individual Himself. Such a demand, that would be hubris. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.107  Nerm_L  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.100    2 weeks ago
It seems that, generally, we are in agreement. However, considering what I think of morality and what I feel about it, the way you describe it seems, I dunno, sort of weak. I mean, I don't think the way you put it states this strongly enough. 

I think we are in general agreement.  To me it seems the major point of disagreement is whether or not laws represent morality.

I have doubts whether the two can be separated like this. I think mores and laws come from morality, I think. 

I agree that laws can be based upon morality.  However, I don't think all laws are based on morality.  And in some cases laws can legalize what is immoral.  To me that's why a legal authority cannot be a replacement for moral authority. However, not all legal questions involve morality.  So, I think allowing a moral authority to become the legal authority is unworkable.

IMO the legal authority and moral authority must remain separate.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.108  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.105    2 weeks ago
It is a great argument given what I am arguing.

Which appears to be that unless whatever Authority establishes morality to each of us personally, then we can just consider morality to be subjective and we don't need to think any more about it. 

I am arguing that the only morality we have ever evidenced is subjective morality.

No, not really. In order to do that, you have to prove that morality is subjective. All you've been able to do is point out that people have differing views on what is moral. That fact alone doesn't make morality subjective. The most one can say about your argument is that if there is an objective morality, people can't seem to agree on what it is.

You can counter that argument by giving evidence of objective morality.

I have, but you don't respond to them. 

Saying 'but there just must be objective morality' (and equivalent) is not evidence of objective morality.

I would agree, which is why I don't base my argument on it. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.109  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.102    2 weeks ago
It is hubris to declare this as God's truth:  that would be speaking for the grandest possible entity.

It is far less hubris to restate a fundamental spiritual truth handed down for millennia and shared by 1/3 of the world's population than it is to declare that 1/3 of the world's population incorrect based on solely on one's own limited experiences.

Even if an individual can point to scripture, that presumes not only that the individual's interpretation is spot on but that the words read actually express the position of the grandest possible entity.   

The phrase in question is a simplification of a Christian axiom.  That axiom has been at the core of all Christian theology since the beginning.

Pretending that re-stating this axiom is somehow "speaking for God" is akin to pretending that stating "The Rolling Stones play rock and roll" is somehow "speaking for Keith Richards".  It's a ridiculous stretch and actual logic isn't nearly elastic enough to accommodate it.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.110  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.107    2 weeks ago
I agree that laws can be based upon morality.  However, I don't think all laws are based on morality.  And in some cases laws can legalize what is immoral.  To me that's why a legal authority cannot be a replacement for moral authority.

Definitely agree.

However, not all legal questions involve morality.

Assuming you aren't speaking of "laws" selfish individuals work to enact for their own benefit, I'm not sure I can agree with this. Take property taxes. Ultimately, this involves the moral requirements imposed on a community toward their neighbor. At least that is how I think of it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.111  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.106    2 weeks ago
This doesn't necessarily follow. If there is a God and this God has a truth and He tells this truth to someone and commands that someone to tell others, that is not hubris. 

If a person is literally repeating what God told them to say then that would not be hubris (of course we are presupposing God exists).   So we agree on this point.   

So where does one find these direct words of God?   I noted the problem with claiming the Bible as the word of God ultimately that is mere human interpretation and clearly not the direct word of God.   So where does one find the direct word of God to repeat?   

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.112  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.107    2 weeks ago
IMO the legal authority and moral authority must remain separate.

If you mean Church and State for example, I agree, but not because I think they are separate things. I think the State should reflect God's law, however, humans being what we are, we cannot do this without creating a horror. We've proved this numerous times. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.113  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.111    2 weeks ago
So where does one find these direct words of God?   I noted the problem with claiming the Bible as the word of God ultimately that is mere human interpretation and clearly not the direct word of God.   So where does one find the direct word of God to repeat?

What would you find an acceptable source? 

 
 
 
devangelical
1.1.114  devangelical  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.33    2 weeks ago
Trump for the most part except for some words and tweets has done most of what Republicans would do/ expect

... his entire life...

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.115  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.109    2 weeks ago
It is far less hubris to restate a fundamental spiritual truth handed down for millennia and shared by 1/3 of the world's population than it is to declare that 1/3 of the world's population incorrect based on solely on one's own limited experiences.

The comparison you made was a person speaking for God ("God holds this to be true") vs. claiming that people are voting against their own interests.   Reminder:

DP @1.1.7 — I can't imagine the level of hubris it must take to claim to speak for a God.
Jack @1.1.56 Less than it takes to tell other Americans they are "voting against their own interests".

I thought we were in agreement that stating a belief is not hubris.    Do you disagree with this?:

TiG @1.1.102 Now we are on a completely different discussion: belief vs. declaration of truth.   I agree it is not hubris to believe this.  

Hubris comes from claiming to know (certain knowledge) the mind of the grandest possible entity and articulating same.  In other words: speaking for God.

You have repeated your observation that religions have established their beliefs and have been doing this for thousands of years.   Given I have already agreed with you that is not hubris, why are you repeating it?   

That axiom has been at the core of all Christian theology since the beginning.

Again, yes, it is a belief.   We both hold that beliefs are not hubris.   So why repeat this as if this were the point of disagreement?

Pretending that re-stating this axiom is somehow "speaking for God" is akin to pretending that stating "The Rolling Stones play rock and roll" is somehow "speaking for Keith Richards".  It's a ridiculous stretch and actual logic isn't nearly elastic enough to accommodate it.

Yet again you return to this when I have already offered my opinion that this is not hubris.    Look, Jack, let's use your Keith Richards analogy but maybe corrected to be more in line with what we are talking about.

Quoting scripture is analogous (sort of) to repeating the lyrics of a song.  Something like:  "White girls they’re pretty funny.  Sometimes they drive me mad.  Black girls just wanna get fucked all night.  I just don't have that much jam.".    

Speaking for Keith Richards would be something like declaring as certain truth:  'Keith Richards holds that black girls are nymphs.'   That would be an interpretation of words that are at best indirectly attributed to Keith Richards.

Do you see how that would be speaking for Keith Richards?   To make a certain declaration that that is his view would be mild hubris.   Probably should directly go to Keith and have him answer a direct question.   The analogous certain declaration for the grandest possible entity would likely be at the pinnacle of hubris.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.116  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.113    2 weeks ago
What would you find an acceptable source? 

Hard to say.   If a source exists for the direct words of the sentient entity who created everything now is a good time to reveal it.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.117  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.79    2 weeks ago

Science is objective. Seeking after "just the facts." Morality seeks after more than what is, yes?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.118  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.117    2 weeks ago

Why bring science into this?   

 
 
 
CB
1.1.119  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.118    2 weeks ago

Science is an important part of reality.

Science is objective. Seeking after "just the facts." Morality seeks after more than what is, yes?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.120  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.119    2 weeks ago
Science is an important part of reality.

So is sex and our environment but that does not make them relevant in every discussion.   

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.121  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.115    2 weeks ago
I thought we were in agreement that stating a belief is not hubris.

Perfect.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.122  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.121    2 weeks ago

Good grief

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.123  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.104    2 weeks ago
But what makes you so sure that behavior is not governed by the laws of physics?   Just because it is too complex for us to (currently) identify the laws in effect?

Because I know that I have free will in the same sense a stubbed toe proves reality. 

Physics governs all of this, so why would you think that the complex construct of the human brain somehow no longer follows the rules of physics?

Because it is not a logical conclusion to believe that everything in this universe perfectly follows the laws of physics in every detail without exception but can't manage it with morality. 

They would abide by the mores and values of their social / cultural groups. Pretty much what we observe.

No. What we observe is that people treat morality as objective and act accordingly. My question was what if people didn't treat it as objective and truly treated it as subjective? What it would look like is that there would be no thought of morality. Everyone would simply do whatever satisfied their desires. 

How could a mere human being introduce objective mores? Human beings are the source of subjective mores, but we are not and cannot be the source of objective morality.

This makes no sense to you because you are crediting the wrong thing as the source. Nor have I credited human beings as the source. For morality to be a real, actual thing it has to be externally imposed. Gravity doesn't exist because we are the source of it. Morality is the same, in my opinion. 

What evidence?

That no matter what we say about morality, we cannot help but act as if it is objective. 

You find that morality cannot be subjective because we treat our own subjective mores as though they were objective. You see the differences in mores yet still claim this is objective morality.

Not sure where I said there was a difference between mores and morality , but anyway, I am not saying, nor have I said such things cannot be subjective. More accurately, I'm not saying that what is moral can't be treated subjectively. Obviously it can be. What I am saying is that, regardless of what we claim, we act on the assumption that what we consider to be moral applies to everyone. Our very actions regarding morality indicates that we think morality is objective, even though we are pretty poor at figuring out what is actually moral. 

You see, if morality is not objective, all you are left with is a pseudo-morality called relative moralism. All relative moralism is is an excuse to attain what you desire through contrived justification. 

Yes, it makes great sense that human beings suck at determining what is objectively moral. That probably could only be done by our creator. So, in lieu of direction by said creator, human beings roll their own subjective morality. We do suck at it, but it would seem (based on the evidence) that we have no other choice.

Again, it seems your view is that unless said Creator personally tells each and every one of us just what is moral, it's hopeless. Maybe that isn't your view, but that is what you say seems to indicate to me. I don't think that is necessary, myself. That God has to personally show up and explain what is moral. 

We have another choice. Use the mind we have and the guidance God gives. But, which God, assuming there is one? If God is there and is truly interested in morality, then it's reasonable to assume the question will be answered, as God would have a personal interest in ensuring that it is. 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.124  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.120    2 weeks ago

Science is objective. Seeking after "just the facts." Morality seeks after more than what is, yes?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.125  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.123    2 weeks ago
Because I know that I have free will in the same sense a stubbed toe proves reality. 

You have free will because you know you do?   If your choices are made by your brain and your brain is a biochemical organ comprised of atoms ⇨ particles⇨ ... ⇨ energy and all of these follow the laws of physics you have acknowledged, then at what point do you break free of these laws?   I have no doubt that you believe we all have free will, but belief is not knowledge.

Because it is not a logical conclusion to believe that everything in this universe perfectly follows the laws of physics in every detail without exception but can't manage it with morality. 

So why do you claim to know that behavior does not follow the laws of physics?

This makes no sense to you because you are crediting the wrong thing as the source. Nor have I credited human beings as the source. For morality to be a real, actual thing it has to be externally imposed. Gravity doesn't exist because we are the source of it. Morality is the same, in my opinion. 

So honor killings, slavery, etc. and sanctity of life, respect for human dignity, etc. all come from an external source?   What is this external source and why does it seem to contradict itself?   

That no matter what we say about morality, we cannot help but act as if it is objective. 

An Islamic culture holds that honor killing is moral (they act as if their mores were objective truth) and you consider that evidence that there is an objective morality.  Not sure how that computes in your mind.

Not sure where I said there was a difference between mores and morality 

You are misreading.   I wrote that you see the differences in mores.   Another way of saying that (awkwardly) is that you see the differences in 'moralities'.   In particular, you see that the relative mores of Islamic cultures are often very different from those of Christian cultures.

You see, if morality is not objective, all you are left with is a pseudo-morality called relative moralism. All relative moralism is is an excuse to attain what you desire through contrived justification. 

Yes.   All we see is subjective (aka relative) morality.   And you have yet to show us where we go to view the rules of objective morality yet keep insisting it exists simply because each culture behaves as though their relative morality is truth.   The contradictions among the cultures makes your argument ... odd.

Again, it seems your view is that unless said Creator personally tells each and every one of us just what is moral, it's hopeless.

My view is that until we can actually evidence objective morality all that we know exists is subjective morality.   We can imagine a

We have another choice. Use the mind we have and the guidance God gives. But, which God, assuming there is one? If God is there and is truly interested in morality, then it's reasonable to assume the question will be answered, as God would have a personal interest in ensuring that it is. 

Yes.   In fact it is reasonable that all human beings across all cultures would have the identical set of mores.   But that is demonstrably not the case.   You do not see the problem?

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.126  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.111    2 weeks ago

The Bible 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.127  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.126    2 weeks ago

Belief is not knowledge.   

How do you know that when you pick up a King James version of the Bible (for example) and repeat a passage that you are stating the word of God?   How do you know you even have the right interpretation of the passage?    How do you know there is a 'right' interpretation of the passage?

You believe it;  you do not know it;  you cannot provide evidence of it.   

Belief is not knowledge.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.128  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.127    2 weeks ago

Belief is faith. You know this already. Our faith is in a revelation revealed 2000 plus years ago. You know this. There has not been and possibly may not be any new revelation, to wit, we must continuously process the meaning found within the Books throughout our time on Earth—or depart from the Faith. You know this already.

Science is objective. Seeking after "just the facts." Morality seeks after more than what is, yes?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.129  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.128    2 weeks ago

You are sealioning .

 
 
 
CB
1.1.130  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.129    2 weeks ago

Science is a part of this larger discussion of objective and subjective morality. Wow! Christians get 'hounded' across NT, and the instance a Christian ask squarely about SCIENCE a person who loves science dares to cry foul? UNSPECTACULAR. And, why am I not surprised that there are 'voters' waiting in the wings to sign on. 

This is all so evidential easy to follow. "Sealioning" —Indeed. That's really rich.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.131  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.125    2 weeks ago

Are you asking me serious questions? Because it doesn't seem like they are serious. It seems as if you aren't asking questions as much as trying to illustrate some point by the questions. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.132  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.131    2 weeks ago

Yes, I am quite serious.   None of this is a joke to me.

But my questions are also there to make a point and to issue challenges; as always.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.133  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.131    2 weeks ago

There is an audience involved here. At least, I have been told this very word in several past- many- discussions on NT when the 'patch' got inhospitable. Then, it would be explained to me what I say does not matter so much as what the silent onlookers receive. Or, statements to this effect. Well, I am not easily manipulated and I won't go along with being displayed for any amusement.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.134  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.125    2 weeks ago
You have free will because you know you do?

How do you know you exist? 

So why do you claim to know that behavior does not follow the laws of physics?

Because it isn't predictable, as the rest of physics is. 

So honor killings, slavery, etc. and sanctity of life, respect for human dignity, etc. all come from an external source?

Morality, as you yourself have recognized, must come from an external source. 

An Islamic culture holds that honor killing is moral (they act as if their mores were objective truth) and you consider that evidence that there is an objective morality.

I think you know quite well that I am not putting forth honor killing as evidence. I think you know quite well that I'm not putting forth any particular behavior forward as evidence. I think you know quite well I am putting forth as evidence that, regardless of what we say about morality, we can't stop treating it as if it is objective. If morality is not objective, why do we seem unable to treat it as not objective? The answer is simple. Because it is objective, even if we suck at identifying it. 

You are misreading. I wrote that you see the differences in mores. Another way of saying that (awkwardly) is that you see the differences in 'moralities'. In particular, you see that the relative mores of Islamic cultures are often very different from those of Christian cultures.

Oh, I see. So let's revisit what you said earlier.

You find that morality cannot be subjective because we treat our own subjective mores as though they were objective. You see the differences in mores yet still claim this is objective morality.

First, no, my argument isn't that morality cannot be subjective simply because we treat them objectively. My argument on those grounds are that two opposing moralities cannot both be right. One of them must be false and the other right, or closer to right. If morality truly were subjective, we probably wouldn't even use terms like right and wrong to describe someone else's morality. 

The other point is that people say morality is subjective, but deny it with their actions. They think their morality applies to everyone and they prove it every day. 

All we see is subjective (aka relative) morality.

That's not true. No society has, to my knowledge, ever put forth selfishness over selflessness. No culture has extolled cowardice over courage. No civilization taught that it's okay to steal from your employer or not provide honest work. No one teaches that it is good to not keep your word. There are many things like this where everyone agrees on what is moral. Things that are too big to miss. 

And you have yet to show us where we go to view the rules of objective morality...

But you yourself already answered this so I have to wonder you're asking. Actually, I'm not wondering. I know why you are asking. You want me to say God so that you can take us down that road, too. 

...yet keep insisting it exists simply because each culture behaves as though their relative morality is truth. 

Then you aren't actually listening, or thinking about what I've said. It is logically impossible for two opposing views presented as moral to both be moral. Honor killing cannot be both moral and immoral at the same time. It's either one or the other. If that is so in this case, it is likely so in all cases. Logic is why I insist objective morality exists.

The reason I keep pointing out the behavior argument isn't to show that objective morality exists but to point out that not even people who say morality is subjective really believe that it is. One can say whatever one wants, but one's actions tell the real tale. The moment one tells another that it's wrong to kill their daughter for a perceived slight to family honor they are telling them something they feel should be self evident to everyone. If they truly thought morality were subjective, they wouldn't say anything at all. 

It would help if you didn't conflate these two points. 

My view is that until we can actually evidence objective morality all that we know exists is subjective morality.

Would you not consider these to be evidence of objective morality? 

No society has, to my knowledge, ever put forth selfishness over selflessness. No culture has extolled cowardice over courage. No civilization taught that it's okay to steal from your employer or not provide honest work. No one teaches that it is good to not keep your word. There are many things like this where everyone agrees on what is moral. Things that are too big to miss.

In fact it is reasonable that all human beings across all cultures would have the identical set of mores.

Why would you think it reasonable?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.135  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.134    2 weeks ago
How do you know you exist? 

As opposed to what?   If I do not exist then I could not engage in thought.   The old Descartes notion of:  'I think therefore I am'.

Because it isn't predictable, as the rest of physics is. 

Who says it is not?   After all, it is not as though human beings can actually predict things that appear to absolutely follow the laws of physics.   Take predicting the weather for example.   We are getting better, but the details are so many and complex that we simply do not have the means to compute with accuracy.   

There is a difference of course between predicting in theory and actually having the means to do so.   Check out Maxwell's daemon.

Morality, as you yourself have recognized, must come from an external source. 

Objective morality must come from an external source.   Subjective morality does not have that restriction.

If morality is not objective, why do we seem unable to treat it as not objective? 

Because every culture thinks it is right.   Your logic remains odd.   Those who hold their morality to be 'true' are no more correct (necessarily) than those who hold their religion 'true'.

First, no, my argument isn't that morality cannot be subjective simply because we treat them objectively. My argument on those grounds are that two opposing moralities cannot both be right. One of them must be false and the other right, or closer to right. If morality truly were subjective, we probably wouldn't even use terms like right and wrong to describe someone else's morality. 

So you agree that two opposing moral systems cannot both be right.   Good.   Now you argue that subjective morality is not possible because of terminology??   Drakk, just because one culture thinks their morality is true does not mean that there is an objective morality.   And if all cultures are totally convinced their morality is true, that still does not have anything to do with objective morality existing.   Your logic here is bizarre.

The other point is that people say morality is subjective, but deny it with their actions. They think their morality applies to everyone and they prove it every day. 

That is basically the same point.  My answer is what I just wrote.

That's not true. No society has, to my knowledge, ever put forth selfishness over selflessness. No culture has extolled cowardice over courage. No civilization taught that it's okay to steal from your employer or not provide honest work. No one teaches that it is good to not keep your word. There are many things like this where everyone agrees on what is moral. Things that are too big to miss. 

So you deem the commonalities among all subjective realities to be objective reality?   Objective reality = the intersection of all subjective moral systems?

But you yourself already answered this so I have to wonder you're asking. Actually, I'm not wondering. I know why you are asking. You want me to say God so that you can take us down that road, too. 

If your answer is God is the source of objective morality (which is no doubt your answer) then there is no need for you to argue that objective morality exists because we all think our own subjective morality is true.  Just skip that (not very good) argument and just say what you mean.   You believe God exists and has established objective morality.   No big secret there.   The problem is: 'how is objective morality communicated to us?".   If you answer: 'the Bible' you will shoot off your foot.

It is logically impossible for two opposing views presented as moral to both be moral. 

Correct.  Obviously.  Part of my point.

Honor killing cannot be both moral and immoral at the same time. It's either one or the other.

Correct.  Obviously.  Part of my point.

If that is so in this case, it is likely so in all cases. Logic is why I insist objective morality exists.

And the problem is that in every situation where there exist conflicts in subjective morality, we have no objective morality to turn to.   It might not exist.   And if it exists and is not known, it might as well not exist.   Thus, where is it?

I am totally aware of what you are arguing and am directly responding to it.   

The reason I keep pointing out the behavior argument isn't to show that objective morality exists but to point out that not even people who say morality is subjective really believe that it is.

See, what is really revealing in these 'debates' is when my interlocutor keeps repeating a point that I have never contested and in fact have noted agreement.   Here is what I mean:  I agree that everyone thinks their subjective morality is the 'true morality'.   Now why do you keep repeating this in paraphrase?   By not even acknowledging agreement I get the impression that you either are not reading my responses or are simply arguing points that I will not rebut (because I agree) and pretending you are providing a rebuttal.    Unless this is a show, there is no reason to keep making points that are not in contention.   Focus on the points of contention.   That is where the real debate lies.

Why would you think it reasonable?

If there were an objective morality from God it is reasonable that everyone would understand that morality.    While it would be possible that God wants everyone to get it wrong, that is not what one would expect.   You do not think that it is reasonable to expect that everyone would know objective morality if it came from the creator who is not purposely trying to muddy the waters??

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.136  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.135    2 weeks ago
That is basically the same point. 

If you think so then there's no real point in continuing. If you do not recognize the difference between the two, which you seem not to, I don't have any grounds upon which to continue. 

You do not think that it is reasonable to expect that everyone would know objective morality if it came from the creator who is not purposely trying to muddy the waters??

Considering that you know, sort of, the tenets of my faith, no, I don't think it would be reasonable. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.137  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.136    2 weeks ago
If you think so then there's no real point in continuing.

Again with the 'you just do not understand' ploy?   If you wish to bow out then do so without (insultingly) trying to put the blame on me.

Note that you have left plenty unanswered on the table. 

Critically, you have claimed that objective morality must exist because every group that employs their own subjective morality believes they are right (believes their morality is objective).   That very strange reasoning is akin to claiming that a true religion must exist because every group believes their religion is the true one. 

Non sequitur

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.138  Nerm_L  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.110    2 weeks ago
Assuming you aren't speaking of "laws" selfish individuals work to enact for their own benefit, I'm not sure I can agree with this. Take property taxes. Ultimately, this involves the moral requirements imposed on a community toward their neighbor. At least that is how I think of it. 

What motivates passage of selfish laws?  Greed, avarice, sloth, envy?  Is a law that empowers greed a moral law?  Is opposition to property taxes motivated by greed, avarice, or envy a moral opposition?  Is an attitude of 'I've got mine' a moral attitude?

IMO theft motivated by greed is less moral than theft motivated by necessity.  Stealing food to sell on a black market is a greater crime and much less moral than stealing food because of hunger.

Many laws concern social organization and social conventions.  Traffic laws, as an example, are rarely about questions of morality.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.139  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.125    2 weeks ago
You have free will because you know you do?

Free will can be tested and observed.  

We know we have free will because of the moral concept of temptation.  We can be tempted to behave according to motivations that are immoral.  And we can choose behaviors that are the opposite of temptations.

Free will can be tested with a plate of donuts.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.140  MrFrost  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.98    2 weeks ago

 At least I don’t have to even spend a moment taking that seriously 

So you don't think Obama is a Christian? What makes you think he isn't? Doesn't cheat on his wife? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.141  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.139    2 weeks ago
Free will can be tested and observed.  

Show me how we can distinguish true free will from the appearance of free will.   

True free will means that we are in control of a faculty that can direct the biochemical state of our brain.   This would necessarily be outside of the brain.    If free will is a function of our biochemical brain then the laws of physics in an extremely complex environment (our bodies and the natural world) is what is making the choices.

The appearance of free will is basically our intuitive feeling of freedom of choice.   I truly feel that I can write the word banana as a sentence.   Banana.   There you go, I just proved I have free will.   Right?   It seems (to me) that I had total control over that decision.   It just must be true that I have free will.

It is true that we all operate as if we have free will and it seems inconceivable that we may not have it.   So show me how we can distinguish true free will from the appearance of free will.   Deliver the red pill Morpheus.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.142  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.126    2 weeks ago

The Bible 

The Bible was written by humans, not God, 400 years after Christ died. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.143  Freedom Warrior  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.140    2 weeks ago

Probably that time where he professed his Muslim faith.  That pretty much sealed the deal.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.144  TᵢG  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.142    2 weeks ago

Well it actually was an ongoing project that started about 1,200 years before Christ.   But, then again, that was based on oral tradition (e.g. sources such as the Epic of Gilgamesh) so it really is difficult to identify the starting point of what ended up being the King James Bible, etc.

I think it is safe to say that people have been writing 'the' Bible for thousands of years and we continue to do so.   And for every variant of 'the' Bible written there are countless conflicting interpretations.   There are so many varied views of God, His exploits, rules, plans, etc. that one can pretty much pick whatever they wish to believe and find some 'divine' justification for it.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.1.145  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.140    2 weeks ago

I can form that conclusion based on the standards set by Jesus

Many claim to be Christians, but their lives say differently

  I make the same charge against much of the body of Evangelicals who don’t obey Christ

“You will know them by their fruits.  Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so,  every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. “Not everyone who says to Me,  ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who  does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we  not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And  then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you;  depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”

Matthew 7:16-23 

A large crowd was following Jesus. He turned around and said to them, “If you want to be my disciple, you must, by comparison, hate everyone else—your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple. And if you do not carry your own cross and follow me, you cannot be my disciple.”  Luke 14:25-27 

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and  difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”   Matthew 7:13-14

“Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?” And He said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for  many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the Master of the house has risen up and  shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying,  ‘Lord, Lord, open for us,’ and He will answer and say to you,  ‘I do not know you, where you are from,’ then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.’ But He will say, ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from.  Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’ There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,  when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out. They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God. And indeed there are last who will be first, and there are first who will be last.”

Luke 13:23-30 

“He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves Me, let him  follow Me; and  where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor.”   John 12:25-26 

“If you love your father or mother more than you love me, you are not worthy of being mine; or if you love your son or daughter more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. If you refuse to take up your cross and follow me, you are not worthy of being mine. If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give up your life for me, you will find it.”

Matthew 10:37-39 NLT

Matt 25:41-46 (Sheep and Goats (conclusion)) Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.” They also will answer, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?” He will reply, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

“Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are  dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches.  I am the Root and the Offspring of David,  the Bright and Morning Star.”  Revelation 22:14-16 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.146  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.141    2 weeks ago
True free will means that we are in control of a faculty that can direct the biochemical state of our brain.   This would necessarily be outside of the brain.    If free will is a function of our biochemical brain then the laws of physics in an extremely complex environment (our bodies and the natural world) is what is making the choices.

I disagree.  IMO true free will allows us to behave contrary to the biochemical state of our brain.  In our modern age people choose to seek out medications that directly alter the biochemical state of their brains to avoid behaviors.

The appearance of free will is basically our intuitive feeling of freedom of choice.   I truly feel that I can write the word banana as a sentence.   Banana.   There you go, I just proved I have free will.   Right?   But it seems like I had total control over that decision.   It just must be true that I have free will.

There is a plate of donuts on the table to be shared among a group and you really, really like donuts.  The biochemical state of your brain is telling you to take all the donuts.  Do you take the whole plate?  Do you take two?  Do you take the largest?  

Or do you consider why the plate of donuts are on the table and regulate your behavior?  

It is true that we all operate as if we have free will and it is inconceivable that we may not have it.   So show me how we can distinguish true free will from the appearance of free will.   Deliver the red pill Morpheus.

Have you considered that we operate as if we have free will then its because we have free will?  

Morpheus offered two pills, one red and one blue.  Take the blue pill, wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.147  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.146    2 weeks ago
I disagree.  IMO true free will allows us to behave contrary to the biochemical state of our brain

You disagree?  Did you read this?:

TiG @1.1.141 - True free will means that we are in control of a faculty that can direct the biochemical state of our brain.   This would necessarily be outside of the brain

Sure seems like you are saying what I just wrote.   Damn close at least.

In our modern age people choose to seek out medications that directly alter the biochemical state of their brains to avoid behaviors.

LOL, what on Earth does that have to do with free will?

Or do you consider why the plate of donuts are on the table and regulate your behavior?  

You do not think that consideration comes from your brain's biochemistry??   So where does it come from?

Have you considered that we operate as if we have free will then its because we have free will?  

Given I have used the word 'if' in my point it should be obvious that I am including the possibility that we do have free will.

Morpheus offered two pills, one red and one blue.  Take the blue pill, wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.  

That is wonderful Nerm.   Nero could dodge bullets.   Do you have a point to make?


Show me how we can distinguish true free will from the appearance of free will.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.148  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.142    2 weeks ago
The Bible was written by humans, not God, 400 years after Christ died. 

Actually that would be the New Testament.  The Old Testament was written by humans more than 400 years before Christ was born.

Consider that the only tool available for observing nature and the universe in antiquity was the human mind.  People in antiquity were far more attuned to reality than we are today.  

People in antiquity used the human mind to answer the question 'why?'  With today's technological marvels we observe nature and the universe to understand 'how'.  Trying to understand 'how' something happened isn't the same as trying to understand 'why' something happened.

IMO we've lost something important by our modern reliance on science to answer questions.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.149  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.144    2 weeks ago
I think it is safe to say that people have been writing 'the' Bible for thousands of years and we continue to do so.

That is certainly true. Homosexuality wasn't mentioned in the bible at all until what...1940's? This is why I tend to lean towards MOST of today's Christians is more of a political group than a religious group. From a moral standpoint, no REAL Christian can support trump. IMHO. 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.150  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.148    2 weeks ago
IMO we've lost something important by our modern reliance on science to answer questions.

Actually Nerm_L, The Bible is not the problem. People who insist on using our set of books, letters, doctrines, and dogmas which are more dedicated to a spiritual way of life (The New Testament), in an attempt to manage and control other people's secular way of life is definitely problematic. Science is not the culprit here. And, Christian believers will do well not to keep running into the buzzsaw of scientific discovery and providing fodder for notorious critiques of their Faith—some who are thriving right here in this article.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.151  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.148    2 weeks ago
Trying to understand 'how' something happened isn't the same as trying to understand 'why' something happened.

I agree.  It's an interesting way to look at things.  It allows one to connect concepts in new ways.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.152  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.148    2 weeks ago
Actually that would be the New Testament.  The Old Testament was written by humans more than 400 years before Christ was born.

I suppose the question I have would be, "Why would 'God' issue two different versions"? For that matter, why issue 10 different versions of the same religion? 

Tried to post the graphic but it doesn't work...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

That's proof that religion was created by humans, not "God". If they were all following the same God and that God was real? It would all be the same book and it's not. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.153  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.147    2 weeks ago
I disagree.  IMO true free will allows us to behave contrary to the biochemical state of our brain

You disagree?  Did you read this?:

TiG @1.1.141 - True free will means that we are in control of a faculty that can direct the biochemical state of our brain.   This would necessarily be outside of the brain

Sure seems like you are saying what I just wrote.   Damn close at least.

In our modern age people choose to seek out medications that directly alter the biochemical state of their brains to avoid behaviors.

LOL, what on Earth does that have to do with free will?

People choose to deliberately alter the biochemical state of their own brains to prevent themselves from engaging in specific behaviors.  That choice to deliberately alter the biochemical state of their brain isn't made outside their own brain.  

Based upon your model, people are using their own brains to deliberately alter their own brains for the purpose of preventing themselves from engaging in specific behaviors.  How is that necessarily outside of the brain?

You do not think that consideration comes from your brain's biochemistry??   So where does it come from?

You are asking how 'free will' works.  That won't answer why we have 'free will'.  

Based upon the bio-mechanical model all decision making occurs in the brain.  The only thing that model can tell us is that 'free will' is a normal function of the brain.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.154  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.152    2 weeks ago
That's proof that religion was created by humans, not "God". If they were all following the same God and that God was real? It would all be the same book and it's not. 

Mathematics was created by humans.  Does that invalidate mathematics?

Philosophy was created by humans.  Does that invalidate philosophy?

Secular atheism was created by humans.  Does that invalidate secular atheism?

----------------------------

Do hammers, saws, and nails build houses?  If God created humans then doesn't that mean that humans have only been a tool?

The argument that humans created religion doesn't really mean what you think it does.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.155  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.154    2 weeks ago

Uh Oh - We may be forced to solve the Chicken or the Egg first argument.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.156  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.153    2 weeks ago
People choose to deliberately alter the biochemical state of their own brains to prevent themselves from engaging in specific behaviors.  That choice to deliberately alter the biochemical state of their brain isn't made outside their own brain. 

So if the choice you mentioned is made within the brain that choice too is based on the biochemistry of the brain which, in turn, is a function of the brain and its environment per physics.   See?

Based upon your model, people are using their own brains to deliberately alter their own brains for the purpose of preventing themselves from engaging in specific behaviors.  How is that necessarily outside of the brain?

It is not necessarily outside of the brain.   What would be necessarily outside of the brain is true free will.   If every choice is a function of brain chemistry then every choice is determined by brain chemistry and thus out of the control of the entity.   

You are asking how 'free will' works.  That won't answer why we have 'free will'.  

Indeed.   I have never asked you why we have free will, that is not what we are discussing.   I am asking you to demonstrate that we have true free will.

Based upon the bio-mechanical model all decision making occurs in the brain.  The only thing that model can tell us is that 'free will' is a normal function of the brain.

That is simply a claim.   I was asking for an explanation, not a claim.


At this point it is clear that you cannot show how we can distinguish true free will from the appearance of free will.    

 
 
 
CB
1.1.157  CB   replied to  MrFrost @1.1.149    2 weeks ago

The Bible is a very old book. Remember the books of the Bible were written first for the periods in which the books were lived. Its meanings and interpretations while constant do tend toward timelessness—obviously. Thus, the confusion over the word (and meaning) of homosexuality- not clearly explained in the Old and New Testaments has led modern people to look back into time for meaning and led to many speculative analyses in our times. It is likely this biblical ambiguity left on the word we call, "homosexual" will continue, maybe to the end of time.

What I have found is people, especially homosexuals, have to decide how the Bible and its scriptures factor into the 'whole' picture of their spirituality. For example, one truly plausible understanding of the biblical text is walking (living in) by faith alone in God/Jesus/Holy Spirit and allowing God to reveal to the 'heart' of the individual what he or she must do.

For the spiritual person or "wannabe" spiritual walker after the manner of Jesus Christ, this is a better step toward remedying the problem in one's spirit than having some group of Materialists with a stated goal of removing faith from the hearts and minds of people, acting to so-called, 'solve' the ambiguous sentences.What can they know of spiritual matters and thinking which they reject?

I suggest, simply walk in faith and leave the rest to God. Clearly, if God is God then God knows the ambiguity in this powerful word, "homosexual" is there and will not charge it to the individual who is doing his or her best to live a righteous life.

From a moral standpoint, no REAL Christian can support trump.

I agree. President Donald Trump is a "perpetual" liar. It is a commandment and tenet of our faith to censure the liar and for each believer to tell the truth as much as it lies within us. Have you seen this current dust-up with President Trump and a weather map? Trump even lies about weather - something he can not possibly 'master' in the time allotted. But, there he is caught lying about—weather. Unbelievable. I believe those Christians who support this brand of presidency are in manifest error as Christians like other people can be when they become strictly political against those they perceive as adversaries.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.158  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.154    2 weeks ago

Religion claims knowledge of the 'mind' of the grandest possible entity — the creator of everything.   That, Nerm, might just be at the pinnacle of grandiose claims.   So the fact that religions are created by human beings directly contradicts the claim of divine knowledge.   If human beings created the religion and made up the stories, rules, intentions and, importantly, the god(s) then ipso facto the religion is not divine.   Any claim of divinity by the religion is a contradiction and thus the religion is invalidated.

Just like a contradiction in a mathematical proof invalidates the proof or a contradiction in a philosophical argument invalidates the argument.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.159  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @1.1.150    2 weeks ago
Actually Nerm_L, The Bible is not the problem. People who insist on using our set of books, letters, doctrines, and dogmas which are more dedicated to a spiritual way of life (The New Testament), in an attempt to manage and control other people's secular way of life is definitely problematic. Science is not the culprit here. And, Christian believers will do well not to keep running into the buzzsaw of scientific discovery and providing fodder for notorious critiques of their Faith—some who are thriving right here in this article.

If I understand your meaning then I agree.

IMO the province of religion is morality and not social organization.  Morality can serve as a guide for laws but cannot be the only justification for laws.

Social organization involves a lot more than morality.  But social organization cannot ignore morality, either.  A strictly secular society risks becoming an immoral society.  

I believe a healthy society needs both a moral authority and a legal authority.  Eliminating one or the other will result in an unhealthy society.

Science does serve a useful purpose for social organization.  But science isn't very good at making moral judgments.  Science can't replace religion.  But, conversely, religion isn't very good at social organization where questions of morality are not involved.  If religion attempts to make every issue a moral judgement then society becomes stagnant and withers.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.160  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.154    2 weeks ago
The argument that humans created religion doesn't really mean what you think it does.

Humans did create world religions. We must not argue the inarguable. However, God has no need of religion—people do. Because of living in the flesh (this natural order). People are limited in this realm of existence in ways we can only imagine won't be the case in the spiritual realm. Thus, yes, religions are designed in ways and methods to give flesh (natural men and women) the ability to execute.

Why are there so many religions? Because God has left mankind 'steward' of the Earth. And, well, we too, our evolution is tied right along with the rest of life on the planet. In other words, it is clear God, who can change hearts and minds, is content to let earthly matters continue to play themselves out: Flesh to flesh.  Thus, it is mankind which is dividing its understanding—not God's doing. For the Christian knows that Jesus prayed we would be one in spirit. We divide of our own accords.

More on this point later.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.161  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.156    2 weeks ago
Indeed.   I have never asked you why we have free will, that is not what we are discussing.   I am asking you to demonstrate that we have true free will.

Your definition of 'true free will' is self refuting.  If 'free will' is an agent outside of ourselves that imposes a course of action then it cannot be free will.  Coercion by an outside agent cannot be free will; therefore cannot be true free will.

'True free will' by your definition cannot be demonstrated because it would not be 'free will'.

Is the source of 'free will' the biochemistry of the brain or is the source of 'free will' some other faculty integrated with the individual?  For the purposes of this discussion I'm not sure that the source of individual 'free will' is important.  

The important point of the discussion is that individuals possess 'free will'.  That can be tested and observed.  The examples I provided does support that individuals do possess 'free will'.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.162  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.158    one week ago
Religion claims knowledge of the 'mind' of the grandest possible entity — the creator of everything.   That, Nerm, might just be at the pinnacle of grandiose claims.   So the fact that religions are created by human beings directly contradicts the claim of divine knowledge.   If human beings created the religion and made up the stories, rules, intentions and, importantly, the god(s) then ipso facto the religion is not divine.   Any claim of divinity by the religion is a contradiction and thus the religion is invalidated.

Why do humans behave the way they do?  What are the motivations for human behavior?  And if humans are motivated to engage in unacceptable behavior then how should those motivations be regulated to avoid the unacceptable behavior?

Punishing crimes always happens after the crime has been committed.  The unacceptable behavior by an individual has not been avoided.  The punishment may prevent a repetition of the unacceptable behavior by an individual but won't avoid the unacceptable behavior by other individuals.

How can unacceptable behavior be avoided before the crime is committed?

Religion and concepts of God may well be the result of close observation of human nature and attempts to answer why humans behave as they do.  The concept of God is based upon an understanding that humans have not always existed; humans were created by some unknown means. The act of creation explains how humans were created but does not explain why humans were created.  The concept of God explains why humans were created and why humans behave as they do.

Understanding the 'mind' of the greatest possible entity is an understanding of why humans were created, why humans behave as they do, and why humans should regulate their behavior.  Science can explain how humans came into existence but religion is needed to explain why humans exist.  Understanding why humans were created provides a purpose for humanity beyond just procreation to continue the existence of the species.

A concept of God is necessary for humans to be more than just another creature on the planet.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.163  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.161    one week ago
Your definition of 'true free will' is self refuting.  If 'free will' is an agent outside of ourselves that imposes a course of action then it cannot be free will.  Coercion by an outside agent cannot be free will; therefore cannot be true free will.

The external aspect ties to the religious notion of spirit.   If you wish to deem that impossible then you will also deem free will impossible.   If all of our choices are a function of biochemistry then our choices are a function of physics.   Extremely complex function, no doubt about it, but a function nonetheless.   Free will is thus an illusion.

Is the source of 'free will' the biochemistry of the brain or is the source of 'free will' some other faculty integrated with the individual?  For the purposes of this discussion I'm not sure that the source of individual 'free will' is important.  

That was the whole point of the discussion.   If we cannot identify the source of free will then clearly we cannot claim free will exists.   We can claim at least a very intimate illusion of free will but not true free will.

The important point of the discussion is that individuals possess 'free will'.  That can be tested and observed. 

You keep claiming this yet you never address my challenge that you show how to distinguish true free will from an illusion of same.    Repeating the claim is not going to address my challenge to you.   Ignoring a plate of donuts does not distinguish true free will from a very convincing illusion of same.

And I know you cannot address this challenge (nobody can) so each time you repeat your claim (as if you know it to be true) it shows that you are not really serious.


And to be crystal clear, I have not claimed there is free will or that there is no free will.   I have simply challenged you to back up your claim that we have true free will — more than an extremely persuasive illusion of same.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.164  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.162    one week ago
A concept of God is necessary for humans to be more than just another creature on the planet.

Probably true.   Does not mean any religion is correct.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.165  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.163    one week ago
You keep claiming this yet you never address my challenge that you show how to distinguish true free will from an illusion of same.    Repeating the claim is not going to address my challenge to you.   Ignoring a plate of donuts does not distinguish true free will from a very convincing illusion of same. And I know you cannot address this challenge (nobody can) so each time you repeat your claim (as if you know it to be true) it shows that you are not really serious.

Are you trying to suggest that 'free will' is not testable?

How can an individual using their own brain to choose to deliberately alter their own brain and prevent engaging in specific behaviors NOT free will?

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.166  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.154    one week ago
Mathematics was created by humans.  Does that invalidate mathematics?

Philosophy was created by humans.  Does that invalidate philosophy?

Secular atheism was created by humans.  Does that invalidate secular atheism?

These are all things that we can prove the existence of. God? Not so much as a shred of evidence......EVER. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.167  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.165    one week ago
Are you trying to suggest that 'free will' is not testable?

Actually I have been asking you to show how we can distinguish true free will from a great illusion of free will.

How can an individual using their own brain to choose to deliberately alter their own brain and prevent engaging in specific behaviors NOT free will?

How many times should I answer this?

The choice to 'deliberately alter their own brain' is itself a function of biochemistry.   Right?   The 'choice' is always based on much lower elements (biochemistry and below).    Unless, of course, you can show otherwise (which you have yet to do).

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.169  Raven Wing  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.164    one week ago
Does not mean any religion is correct.

There is no such thing as any one type of belief being perfect, or any one belief being the only true belief.

The Creator does not make religion. Man makes religion, which is based totally upon his own interpretation of the what Creator wishes of us. 

And because of that fact, there can not be any such thing as one true, perfect or only right religion. As Man is not without fault.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.170  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.167    one week ago
Actually I have been asking you to show how we can distinguish true free will from a great illusion of free will.

Okay. But I think we will need to go through a process before attempting to arrive at a conclusion.  Let's use the mechanical model to create a thought experiment.

Let's say there is a machine sorting objects.  The task of sorting objects is a process of choices determining where each object should be directed.  We can understand the process of choices being made by studying the machine.  But understanding the process of making choices doesn't explain why the objects need to be sorted.

Now let's add another machine.  The second machine can reprogram the sorting machine so that the objects are sorted differently.  The second machine can turn off the sorting machine so that the objects are not sorted.  The second machine determines why the objects need to be sorted.

The two machines are in the same building.  The two machines use the same electricity.  One machine is making the choices and the other machine is determining why the choices should be made.  Understanding how the sorting machine makes choices doesn't explain the second machine.  To understand the second machine we need to understand why the objects should be sorted.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.171  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.137    one week ago
Again with the 'you just do not understand' ploy?   If you wish to bow out then do so without (insultingly) trying to put the blame on me.

No, it's just that if you can't or won't understand my argument, what point is there going on? Case in point" 

Critically, you have claimed that objective morality must exist because every group that employs their own subjective morality believes they are right (believes their morality is objective). That very strange reasoning is akin to claiming that a true religion must exist because every group believes their religion is the true one.

Yes, this would be strange reasoning. It is also not my argument. So what am I to do? Argue your incorrect perception of my argument? Do you think that would be reasonable?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.172  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.171    one week ago

If that is not your argument then make a succinct, clear correction.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.173  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.138    one week ago
Many laws concern social organization and social conventions.  Traffic laws, as an example, are rarely about questions of morality.

That isn't how I think of it. That is, I do think traffic laws are about morality. I think they represent the moral responsibility we have to each other to drive in a manner that gets us to our destinations in a safe, timely manner. We've all seen those who don't think the traffic laws apply to them, driving recklessly and endangering others. We tend to not think well of such people and shake our heads at their morality. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.174  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.172    one week ago
 My argument on those grounds are that two opposing moralities cannot both be right. One of them must be false and the other right, or closer to right. 1.1.134

I don't know how I can be more clear or succinct than this but I know that I understand what this implies to me. Maybe you see something else in those words. If so, ask me some clarifying questions and I'll try to answer them. Until then, if what I stated is true, then logically, it applies to all of morality. Even with similar but not identical moralities. One of them must be more right than the other, assuming the same moral situation. This represents the reason I believe morality is objective. Or, perhaps it would be more accurate to state that there is an objective morality. I do not intend that all moral systems are actually objectively moral and I think that is implied in the statement. 

Please note, however, that this argument doesn't say anything about what is objectively moral. 

Critically, you have claimed that objective morality must exist because every group that employs their own subjective morality believes they are right (believes their morality is objective).

You appear to be referring to statements I've made like this one...

The other point is that people say morality is subjective, but deny it with their actions. They think their morality applies to everyone and they prove it every day. 1.1.134

This is offered as evidence that what people say about subjective morality doesn't match what they do. The point isn't that objective morality must exist because everyone thinks their morality is right. The point is that we cannot but help treat morality as objective. I am trying to point out the cognitive dissonance in stating that morality is subjective but acting as if it is objective. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.175  Nerm_L  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.173    one week ago
That isn't how I think of it. That is, I do think traffic laws are about morality. I think they represent the moral responsibility we have to each other to drive in a manner that gets us to our destinations in a safe, timely manner. We've all seen those who don't think the traffic laws apply to them, driving recklessly and endangering others. We tend to not think well of such people and shake our heads at their morality. 

So, someone that violates a traffic law is an immoral person?  Sorry, I can't accept that view of morality.  

Is attempting to change morality an act of immorality?  If laws are the measure of morality then wouldn't attempting to change laws be immoral?  Immorality could be made moral with a simple majority.  And dissent would become an immoral act.  How would it be possible to make a moral argument to change a law if the law defines morality?

If the laws are the measure of morality then men not wearing turbines and women not wearing burkas would be immoral and they could be morally judged and punished.  Since the law defines morality then it wouldn't be possible to make a moral argument to change the law; attempting to change the law would be immoral.

If the laws are the measure of morality then society is ipso facto a moral theocracy with government in the role of God.  Political ideology becomes moral dictates.  By passing laws to abolish human rights then wouldn't fighting for human rights be immoral?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.176  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.174    one week ago
If so, ask me some clarifying questions and I'll try to answer them. 
  1. Do you recognize that subjective morality exists?    ( Your comments say so. )
  2. Do you hold that objective morality exists?  ( It would seem this, at the least, is what you wish to conclude. )
  3. If so, what is the evidence of objective morality?  ( Your comments suggest that the 'evidence' is the fact that groups treat their subjective morality as if it were objective. )

Probably should stop here for now.

This is offered as evidence that what people say about subjective morality doesn't match what they do.

A point that I have never contested.

The point isn't that objective morality must exist because everyone thinks their morality is right. The point is that we cannot but help treat morality as objective.

But treating subjective morality as if it were objective reality does not ipso facto mean objective morality exists.   Right?

I am trying to point out the cognitive dissonance in stating that morality is subjective but acting as if it is objective. 

The group holding the subjective morality sees nothing inconsistent with applying their morality to others.  You agree, right?   They likely have no cognitive dissonance.    Regardless,  since we have always agreed people presume their subjective morality is truth why are you trying to point this out?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.177  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.175    one week ago
So, someone that violates a traffic law is an immoral person?  Sorry, I can't accept that view of morality.  

I didn't intend that such a person was wholly immoral. My point was that even traffic laws are moral in my opinion. What the point was concerning the reckless driver was our typical reaction to such drivers. 

Is attempting to change morality an act of immorality? If laws are the measure of morality then wouldn't attempting to change laws be immoral? Immorality could be made moral with a simple majority. And dissent would become an immoral act. How would it be possible to make a moral argument to change a law if the law defines morality?

I do not think laws define morality. I think morality defines the law or is supposed to. For instance, a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour doesn't mean the speed of 30 mph is more moral than 35 mph. The morality is recognizing that for the sake of everyone's safety, I should obey the speed limit, the reason it was place at that speed in the first place. 

Since morality isn't defined by law but rather, the other way around, no, it wouldn't be immoral to change a law to something more moral. I think this covers the rest of what you posted. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.178  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.176    one week ago
  1. Do you recognize that subjective morality exists?    ( Your comments say so. )

Depends on the context of your question. If you mean morality as simply whatever a group thinks is right, then yes, there are subjective moralities out there. If you meant that morality is subjective, then, no, I don't recognize it as existing. This is an obvious conclusion of the statement you are asking me to clarify. If two opposing moralities cannot both be correct, then one of them isn't actually moral. We just call it morality as a means to refer to the ideas they consider to be moral. 

2.  Do you hold that objective morality exists? ( It would seem this, at the least, is what you wish to conclude. )

Yes.

3. If so, what is the evidence of objective morality?

Two opposing moralities cannot both be correct. 

But treating subjective morality as if it were objective reality does not ipso facto mean objective morality exists. Right?

Correct. 

The group holding the subjective morality sees nothing inconsistent with applying their morality to others. You agree, right? They likely have no cognitive dissonance.

I am not talking about a group. I am talking about the person who states morality is subjective but then acts as if it is objective. That is a classic case of cognitive dissonance. 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.179  CB   replied to  MrFrost @1.1.152    one week ago
"Why would 'God' issue two different versions"?
For that matter, why issue 10 different versions of the same religion? 

First consider that the Bible (Books) you read in the Old Testament and in the New Testament (including Paul's epistles (letters) were not written at one time and not to the same people ("tribes") for one unified set of purposes. The point best remembered is God's plan for salvation (as we call it today) was not one consolidated plan delivered it was 'dropped off' in component parts, first through the  nation, Israel. Then through a son, Jesus.  And later through a church founder and organizer, Paul.  Spanning different periods in "Temple, pre-Church, and Church history." The 'blueprint' in component parts was not completed until the various books were closed by Church officials under spiritual inspiration. These council-members brought to together to make determination about a "sea" of documents in circulation did there best to take action to see that only the proper (authentic) documents come together in one consolidated books. Thus, many documents did not make the 'cut.' However, and unfortunately, those other documents did not simply dissolve back into the void. Other men and women preserved these other documents for posterity sake and for participation in forming their own 'gospels' and teachings.

Ergo, many voices continue to speak out today from those sources outside "the Book," and, of course, translations into many languages has increased the confusion (if it can be called this) of what people in different parts of the world understand about the officially sanctioned books of the Bible. The council members thought to decrease the addition of new (old) material to the Bible by giving it closure. No one has any new revelation or unction from above, or mandate  to reopen the texts. Our bible can be properly considered, "Alpha'ed and Omega'ed."  That is, it has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

Finally, for this question, God never intended the 'program' of salvation to start and end with the nation of Israel, because God has spiritual children outside of Israel. Children to which the rites, traditions, and customs in Israel do not justifiably apply.

Different versions of the same religion. This is man's doing and it can be observed that plainly God has not acted to stop the proceeding of error in doctrines, falling away, and false teacher/false leaders. Also, as mentioned earlier, since our Bible came to us through a route froth with peril (it was not handed down in one consolidated "moving" document), it is subject to the wills of men and women existing in each and every generation.

That our Bible retains any credibility 1500 years later (deep into the age of science and critical thinking) is considered the 'wonder working' power of God at work giving the Book the ability to withstand the ravishes of time.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.180  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.166    one week ago
These are all things that we can prove the existence of. God? Not so much as a shred of evidence......EVER. 

How would you prove the existence of mathematics? 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.181  Nerm_L  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.177    one week ago
I do not think laws define morality. I think morality defines the law or is supposed to. For instance, a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour doesn't mean the speed of 30 mph is more moral than 35 mph. The morality is recognizing that for the sake of everyone's safety, I should obey the speed limit, the reason it was place at that speed in the first place.  Since morality isn't defined by law but rather, the other way around, no, it wouldn't be immoral to change a law to something more moral. I think this covers the rest of what you posted. 

Well, I think people are more likely to judge others based on social conventions and social expectations.  And I definitely agree that social convention and expectations are subjective at the level of a society.  And not all social conventions are codified in law.

People that violate social conventions are accused of doing something wrong.  So, I can agree that what a society considers right and wrong is subjective to that society.  

But I suggest that social conventions are about right and wrong actions and behaviors.  Doing wrong isn't quite the same thing as being immoral.  Colloquially, and admittedly imperfectly, people can do the wrong thing for the right reason; that would be doing wrong by violating social convention.  People can also do the wrong thing for the wrong reason; that would more likely be immoral.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.182  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  CB @1.1.157    one week ago

Actually Trump was vindicated regarding that map...

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.183  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.181    one week ago
Well, I think people are more likely to judge others based on social conventions and social expectations.  And I definitely agree that social convention and expectations are subjective at the level of a society.  And not all social conventions are codified in law.
People that violate social conventions are accused of doing something wrong. So, I can agree that what a society considers right and wrong is subjective to that society.

I wouldn't argue with that. That I think true morality is objective doesn't mean I don't recognize we actually operate on a subjective level. Usually, we are hoping that our social conventions and societal expectations are actually moral (North Korea would be a counter example).  Considering our nature, that's about as good as we are likely to do on our own.

But I suggest that social conventions are about right and wrong actions and behaviors. Doing wrong isn't quite the same thing as being immoral. Colloquially, and admittedly imperfectly, people can do the wrong thing for the right reason; that would be doing wrong by violating social convention. People can also do the wrong thing for the wrong reason; that would more likely be immoral.

Morality is a tough nut to crack. As you say, people can do the wrong thing for the right reasons. But morality isn't simply following social norms and conventions. Morality is about why one acts, it seems to me. One could be incredibly immoral, but that they are currently obeying the speed limit at a given moment doesn't make them a moral person. Likewise, a moral person who tried to do the right thing, even though the action may have been wrong, often are just trying to do a moral thing as they understand it, given the situation at the moment. 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.184  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.159    one week ago

We, people of this planet, do not see this world the same way. If you have ever been without your faith in God, or irreligious (and/or hostile) toward a religious way of life you can remember your prior convictions—juxtaposed to who and how you live today. This is what religion, any religion, can do for you and me. A religion will 'envelope' the individual in spirit, mind, and body respectively. The irreligious and hostiles lack this spiritual component of the three (the hostiles will speak disrespectfully of it).

A secular society, like the spiritual realm (temple, church, synagogue, mosque, etceteras) creates its own rules, laws, and rituals. The secular society came before the Spiritual society. Then, into its lawlessness a need for some order was demanded and delivered. In every country and tribe on this planet there are 'rules to live by.' It is how a sense of community and shared existences can function.

Even if found to be wrong, rules exist to govern the areas where people collect and overlap together. (You can see this in the beast of the field as well.)

Science, I agree, does not concern itself with right or wrong. Science deals with what is in nature alone. Morality is something we, people, place atop science to control our own human impulse to abuse the medium. For example, should humanity ever discover another 'blue' planet - ready for sustaining human life it will likely be science that makes the activity of migrating to it possible. But science does not care if humanity departs this planet as a whole or in tribal groups determined to leave others behind for their own fortune or destruction here. A code of morality, a sense of right and wrong, is the means to soften the hard heart of another to remove all people to the new home as required. Test tubes and logic are not suited to be the Guide.

I hope this comment connects with your thoughts in some meaningful way.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.185  CB   replied to  Heartland American @1.1.182    one week ago

How? And, is anybody at all taking the fall for it? Do we have a king now, HA?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.186  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.178    one week ago
Depends on the context of your question. If you mean morality as simply whatever a group thinks is right , then yes, there are subjective moralities out there.

We agree on that.

If you meant that morality is subjective, then, no, I don't recognize it as existing.

Thus you hold that morality can only be objective and have thus redefined the English word ' morality ' to be substantially more restrictive than common usage (see: morality per Oxford ).

[ the evidence of objective morality is that ] two opposing mores cannot both be correct

This presupposes objective morality ( which correlates with how you define morality above ) as evidence for itself.   Unless you can show otherwise, you implicitly define the word ' correct ' as ' part of objective morality '.   Substituting we have:

The evidence of objective morality is that two opposing mores cannot both be part of objective morality. 

Stopping here to give you a chance to explain this.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.187  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.186    one week ago
This presupposes objective morality

Why? It simply recognizes a logical fact, unless you are questioning the existence of morality of any kind. In that sense, it does presuppose there exists a thing called morality. 

Stopping here to give you a chance to explain this.

What is it that you want me to explain? Why you reworded what I said? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.188  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.187    one week ago
Why? It simply recognizes a logical fact, unless you are questioning the existence of morality of any kind.

What is the logical fact you are recognizing (to be clear)?

In Drakk @1.1.178 (below) you implicitly recognize only objective mores.   That is, you do not recognize the mores of what we have been calling 'subjective morality' as 'true' mores.  At least that is how it reads to me.

Drakk @1.1.178 - Depends on the context of your question. If you mean morality as simply whatever a group thinks is right, then yes, there are subjective moralities out there. [no problem so farIf you meant that morality is subjective, then, no, I don't recognize it as existing. [this is where you seem to only recognize objective mores].  This is an obvious conclusion of the statement you are asking me to clarify. If two opposing moralities cannot both be correct, then one of them isn't actually moral. We just call it morality as a means to refer to the ideas they consider to be moral. 

If I have misunderstood then make the necessary correction.   

Why you reworded what I said? 

The only way I can ensure I understand what you mean is to paraphrase and run that past you in baby steps.   I am, as usual, not playing any games Drakk.   I am trying to take this one step at a time and encouraging you to correct any misunderstandings.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.189  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.188    one week ago
What is the logical fact you are recognizing (to be clear)?

Two mutually opposing moralities cannot both be moral. 

If I have misunderstood then make the necessary correction.

Mostly all you did here was quote me and correctly identified where I say morality is not subjective. I don't know if that indicates understanding on your part. 

The only way I can ensure I understand what you mean is to paraphrase and run that past you in baby steps. I am not playing any games Drakk. I am trying to take this one step at a time and encouraging you to correct any misunderstandings.

Where is there room for misunderstanding in stating that two opposing moralities can't both be correct? Do you think they can be? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.190  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.189    one week ago
Two mutually opposing moralities cannot both be moral

And by 'moral' you mean 'part of objective morality'.   Is that correct or did you mean something else by the word 'moral'?

Note:  this question is based on your position that subjective morality is not true morality.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.191  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.190    one week ago
And by 'moral' you mean 'part of objective morality'.

Not as part of the argument, no. I stated it as intended. Objective morality comes as a conclusion and is not a part of the argument. 

Group A says offering your baby as a burnt offering to the god is moral, right and good.

Group B says offering your baby as a burnt offering to the god is immoral, wrong and evil. 

Both positions cannot be true at the same time and be moral. Not unless we downgrade the meaning of morality to simply mean what an individual or group thinks it is. We could do that, but then we disconnect morality from concepts like right and wrong or good and evil. 

When we speak of either group's beliefs on the subject of baby sacrifice, we are talking about their morals. Specifically, what they hold to be moral concerning a given subject. We are simply using the word "morals" as the subject on which we are conversing. We are not confirming what they believe as actually moral.

So, what we have is two groups, each with their own morals. But, logically, only one of them can be right concerning baby sacrifice. One of those positions is false, and therefor is not actually moral. And since they cannot both be morally right, morality is not subjective. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.192  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.191    one week ago
Not as part of the argument, no. I stated it as intended. Objective morality comes as a conclusion and is not a part of the argument.  Both positions cannot be true at the same time and be moral

If 'moral' does not mean 'part of objective morality' or 'conform to objective morality' then what do you mean by 'moral'?   

Not unless we downgrade the meaning of morality to simply mean what an individual or group thinks it is. 

If 'morality' cannot be 'downgraded to have meaning' per a group, then by 'morality' you must mean 'objective morality'.   What else is left?

We are not confirming what they believe as actually moral.

How can you use 'moral' in a context that connotes only part of objective morality yet deny that is what you mean?   

So, what we have is two groups, each with their own morals. But, logically, only one of them can be right concerning baby sacrifice. One of those positions is false, and therefor is not actually moral. And since they cannot both be morally right, morality is not subjective. 

They actually can both be morally right per their respective subjective moralities.   So since you claim they cannot both be right, you are clearly NOT talking about 'right' in their subjective moralities.  What is left besides objective morality?   


Is it possible, in your view, for something to be considered moral and not be part of objective morality (not conform to objective morality)?   That is, how do you define moral without presupposing objective morality?

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.193  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.191    one week ago

You are correct.  When Israel returned to Canaan from Egypt, God instructed the Israelites to deal especially harshly with the societies there involved in such counterfeit morality as the baby sacrificing societies engaged in. God gave them 500 years to repent and change from  the time Israel left to join Joseph in Egypt and the time Joshua approached Jericho and they repented not.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.194  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.192    one week ago

Subjective morality compared to objective morality is no better than situational ethics compared to objective ethical standards.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.195  Nerm_L  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.183    one week ago
Morality is a tough nut to crack. As you say, people can do the wrong thing for the right reasons. But morality isn't simply following social norms and conventions. Morality is about why one acts, it seems to me. One could be incredibly immoral, but that they are currently obeying the speed limit at a given moment doesn't make them a moral person. Likewise, a moral person who tried to do the right thing, even though the action may have been wrong, often are just trying to do a moral thing as they understand it, given the situation at the moment. 

Yep.  IMO we're on the same page, we just deliver the soliloquy with different inflection.

To me, a simplistic way to look at it is that laws a are about right and wrong while morality is about good and bad.  

I admit that I often confuse the two even though I see a distinction between the two.  So, I don't practice what I preach, either.  Maybe that makes me human?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.196  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.167    one week ago
Actually I have been asking you to show how we can distinguish true free will from a great illusion of free will.

Okay.  Picking up from @1.1.170

The thought experiment presented two machines: a sorting machine making choices and a second machine determining why the choices are made.

The sorting machine is making choices based upon a distinction of right and wrong.  Objects directed according to the sorting machines programming is the right thing to do.  If the sorting machine fails to sort according to its programming then the objects are directed in the wrong direction.  The sorting machine functions according to right and wrong.

The second machine is determining why the objects are being sorted.  The second machine can change the programming of the sorting machine to sort objects differently or to not sort the objects at all.  The second machine is determining why the sorting machines choices are good or bad.  And the second machine can change the right/wrong programming of the sorting machine according to good/bad.

The machines may reside in the same building, use the same power source, and may be identical in appearance but the machines are performing different functions.

Free will isn't about making choices that are right or wrong.  Free will is about directing the choices to be good or bad.  

It's better to be good than to be right.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.197  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.194    one week ago

Correct, objective is superior to subjective / situational / contextual / relative.   

That is not what we are discussing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.198  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.196    one week ago

Free will is the ability to create a completely new causal chain rather than simply continue an existing chain.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.199  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.198    one week ago
Free will is the ability to create a completely new causal chain rather than simply continue an existing chain.

Yes, that would be a rational statement.  I believe that the statement also needs to include a criteria for creating a new causal chain that we commonly call morality.

I suppose the criteria for creating a new causal chain would be comparing self interest to a selfless standard.  So, I would suggest the rational statement would be more complete by stating:

Free will is the ability to create a completely new causal chain by comparing self interest to a selfless standard rather than simply continuing an existing causal chain.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.200  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.192    one week ago
If 'moral' does not mean 'part of objective morality' or 'conform to objective morality' then what do you mean by 'moral'? 

Look. What is this discussion about? Are we not debating whether morality is subjective or objective? Is this not the question we are trying to answer? So we don't have to presume either one in the statement but, rather, allow the statement to conclude which is the more likely.

If it is true that two opposing moralities cannot both be correct then the conclusion is rather obvious. At least to me, anyway. 

If 'morality' cannot be 'downgraded to have meaning' per a group, then by 'morality' you must mean 'objective morality'. What else is left?

The point was, is morality a real thing in and of itself or is it just a word we use to refer to what individuals or groups believe about what is right or wrong. In order to even make the statement "two opposing morals cannot both be right", one is necessarily assuming that morality is a real thing in and of itself and is not dependent on societal preference. If they were simply dependent on societal preference, then we're no longer talking about what is actually right and wrong any longer. We are not talking about actual good and evil and longer, as those would just be terms applied to whatever we wanted. Morality would just be something like the sense of taste. Some people prefer certain tastes over others and such. We'd be saying things like, well, I don't personally care for circumcision of little girls to keep them from being promiscuous later in life, but hey, if it works for their culture that's fine. 

So, do you think morality is a real thing or just some tag we hang on whatever anyone believes? 

How can you use 'moral' in a context that connotes only part of objective morality yet deny that is what you mean?

First of all, I don't think I am denying what I mean. I think you have some idea about my conclusion being included in the premise and are working to establish this. I do not think I am. In asking the question, is morality objective or subjective, one has to answer certain questions. You don't have to presuppose either one in order to get an answer. The first obvious question is, is morality an actual thing? Are there things that are good and right and are there things that are bad and evil? Or do we simply mean whatever one believes about those things? Do you agree that there is a difference? 

Second, concerning what you are referring to, we use the word "morality" in two different ways. One is referring to what is actually good and what is evil. The other way is to refer to some person's or group's beliefs about what is good and evil. In this second way we aren't confirming their beliefs are actually moral. We are simply referring to what they believe is moral. 

They actually can both be morally right per their respective subjective moralities.

True, assuming morality is subjective. The problem is, in this case you do have to presuppose subjective morality for this to be true. Try explaining this:

Two opposing moralities can both be right. Example: Group A says offering your baby as a burnt offering to the god is moral, right and good.
Group B says offering your baby as a burnt offering to the god is immoral, wrong and evil.

I am asking you to actually explain how both of these can be true at the same time. 

So since you claim they cannot both be right, you are clearly NOT talking about 'right' in their subjective moralities. What is left besides objective morality?

Yes, that would be the conclusion. That one of these must be wrong, therefor proving that morality is objective. If I am presupposing anything, it is that there is actual, or objective, good and evil. Actual, or objective, right and wrong. 

Is it possible, in your view, for something to be considered moral and not be part of objective morality (not conform to objective morality)?

Not at this time. That is, no, I don't think it is possible. What I do think is possible is that two different groups can both be objectively moral but express their morality in different ways. This is because humans being what they are, being moral can often be difficult. Hence the term, moral dilemma. We have all experienced moral dilemmas and it often seems impossible to find the right moral answer. But there is a right one, even though we may not be able to see it. Too much of our nature often crowds out moral solutions. 

That is, how do you define moral without presupposing objective morality?

I don't have to presuppose objective morality. I just have to presuppose there is actual good and evil. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.201  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.195    one week ago
I admit that I often confuse the two even though I see a distinction between the two.  So, I don't practice what I preach, either.  Maybe that makes me human?

That's my take, too. Morality is hard because of our natures. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.202  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.200    one week ago
What is this discussion about?

You told me that I am misunderstanding you.   Accordingly, I was taking baby-steps to ensure I understood your meaning.   When you use words that can have multiple meanings I was asking you what you mean.   I then paraphrased to reflect my understanding and asked you if the paraphrase is correct.   And I was purposely being succinct to focus like a laser on the problem.   But now we are back to long comments and thus a loss of precision.

Are we not debating whether morality is subjective or objective?

Or both?  Or just subjective (me, pending evidence to the contrary)?   Or just objective (you, it seems)?

Best I can tell, you think that morality can only be objective.   You recognize subjective morality of a group but do not accept its mores to be true since they come from fallible human beings;  evidenced by the fact that some mores contradict among the groups.   To you, it seems, that contradiction is evidence of objective morality.   I am trying to get you to show why that is the case.

Is this not the question we are trying to answer?

So, continuing on from above, I hold that subjective morality exists and that it is the only morality for which we have evidence.   That is, we have zero evidence of objective morality.   That does not mean objective morality does not exist, it just means that we do not know if it exists or not.   It is possible that the only morality is subjective.

You, in contrast, largely dismiss subjective morality as not really 'true' morality and only hold objective morality to be 'true'.

So we don't have to presume either one in the statement but, rather, allow the statement to conclude which is the more likely.

They both could exist.  I only see evidence for subjective morality.   I am trying to get you to be crystal clear on your evidence for objective morality. 

If it is true that two opposing moralities cannot both be correct then the conclusion is rather obvious. At least to me, anyway. 

The operative word is 'correct'.   How, in your view, is 'correct' determined?   The moral system for group X is correct per group X.   The opposing moral system for group Y is correct per group Y.   You presume that at most one of two competing mores must be correct thus you presume there is an objective 'correct'.  How that is not presupposing the existence of objective morality is your challenge to explain.   (This is what I was focusing on in my comment @1.1.192.)

The point was, ...

This entire paragraph claims that the only true morality is objective morality.   And this is the position I understand you to have taken.   You reject subjective morality because it is man-made and thus subject to the whims of the group; no guarantee to be consistent with "actual good and evil".    This notion of "actual good and evil" must be referring to objective morality.   Right?   If not, then this is a good thing to explain: what distinguishes "actual good and evil" if not objective morality?  If you hold that "actual good and evil" exist then how can you not be presupposing objective morality?

The first obvious question is, is morality an actual thing? Are there things that are good and right and are there things that are bad and evil? Or do we simply mean whatever one believes about those things? Do you agree that there is a difference? 

The question is always based on a context.   There is good and right and bad and evil within a group because the group says so.   There might be good and right and bad and evil for ALL groups because the creator says so.   In all cases, morality is defined per a context.   Objective morality would be defined per the context that contains all other groups;  that would be the domain of the creator.   Now if you say that I am wrong and that there is only one determination of good and right and bad and evil then how are you not referencing objective morality?   Seems to me this nets down to simply repeating your claim:  objective morality is the only true morality.

Second, concerning what you are referring to, we use the word "morality" in two different ways. One is referring to what is actually good and what is evil. The other way is to refer to some person's or group's beliefs about what is good and evil. In this second way we aren't confirming their beliefs are actually moral. We are simply referring to what they believe is moral. 

Here again, you effectively state that objective morality is the only true morality.   This is just a claim; an argument 'by definition'.   An argument by definition is fine if the established meaning of the word or phrase agrees with you, but it does not.   Mores created by fallible human beings based on their beliefs are included in the common meaning.   Thus subjective morality is a form of morality by definition.   Your 'by definition' argument simply does not work.

The problem is, in this case you do have to presuppose subjective morality for this to be true.

Then do not even use the term 'subjective' and just call it morality.   By definition morality exists.   No presupposition necessary.   I use the adjective 'subjective' to distinguish the morality of groups which we evidence from the concept of 'objective' morality (uber truth).   And what we evidence are mores established by groups.   No presupposition necessary for that which we can observe.

Two opposing moralities can both be right. Example: Group A says offering your baby as a burnt offering to the god is moral, right and good.
Group B says offering your baby as a burnt offering to the god is immoral, wrong and evil.
I am asking you to actually explain how both of these can be true at the same time. 

I presume you recognize that Group A and B both think they are right.   So right vs. wrong in the context of the groups is clearly established.   You are, again, asking how A and ~A can both be objectively true.   They cannot both be objectively true, they can only both be subjectively true.   Note, now, that we have no method to determine which of those is true.   The only way to determine this is to have an objective morality.   If objective morality exists then A or ~A can be deemed right.   If not, we only know that given a consistent objective morality (if one were to exist) only one of them would be right.

Note also, that both may be wrong.  Baby burning no matter the circumstances (offering to a god or not) might be objectively wrong.   If we have objective morality the determination can be made.   If not, we are left with subjective morality.

That one of these must be wrong, therefor proving that morality is objective. If I am presupposing anything, it is that there is actual, or objective, good and evil. Actual, or objective, right and wrong. 

Presupposing there is an objective good and evil differs from presupposing objective morality in what way?

I don't have to presuppose objective morality. I just have to presuppose there is actual good and evil. 

(same question as above)

 
 
 
CB
1.1.203  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.183    one week ago

Drakk and Nerm, I have a serious question on this topic of objective morality and I would like your inputs to it. Forgive me, this thought came to me Sunday and I am not sure if this context has been dealt with up (or down) this discussion of morality.

  1. Law is about social morality (what society says is right or wrong).
  2. Objective morality can be along the lines of what we do when no one is around to see us do it (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.)

#1. Is self-explanatory to civilized people.

#2. This is an attitude and behavior which kicks in-in every situation where there is no law. For example, a woman is lost in the woods, and is approached by two men riding in a car. The choices are (loosely):

  1. The two men can overpower her and take from her what they wish. There is no law in a deserted woods.
  2. The two men can give her a lift back to civilization, based on both men wishing anybody who finds either of them wandering in the woods would do so for them.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.204  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.202    one week ago
I hold that subjective morality exists and that it is the only morality for which we have evidence.

I hold that society treats morality as subjective, but acts as if it is objective. Further, I hold that there is plenty of objective evidence for objective morality. 

For one, the example of sacrificing babies on a fiery alter is logical evidence for objective morality. Second, everyone acts as if morality is objective. Why would we do that if we actually recognized morality as subjective? Third there are morals that hardly anyone denies is not objective. Most people believe keeping one's word is a moral thing to do. And it is. Look at what happens when someone doesn't keep their word. That isn't theoretical. You can see the result of not keeping one's word.

But before I go any further, I need to know more about your position. Do you believe actual good and evil exist or do you believe these concepts are merely social constructs? For instance, do you hold that sacrificing babies as burnt offerings can be moral if that is what that group thinks is moral? Or is burning babies as sacrifices wrong no matter what anyone thinks about it? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.205  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @1.1.203    one week ago

I'm afraid I don't understand what your question is. 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.206  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.205    one week ago

Sorry, I did not write any of that in the form of a question. Is # 2, in your opinion, an example of objective morality?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1.207  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.34    one week ago
Who says harming innocent humans who haven't harmed others is immoral?

every sane person on the planet.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.208  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.204    one week ago
I hold that society treats morality as subjective, but acts as if it is objective.

Yes got that.   I hold that subjective morality exists (it is evidenced) and we do not know if an objective morality exists.

For one, the example of sacrificing babies on a fiery alter is logical evidence for objective morality. Second, everyone acts as if morality is objective. Why would we do that if we actually recognized morality as subjective? Third there are morals that hardly anyone denies is not objective. Most people believe keeping one's word is a moral thing to do. And it is. Look at what happens when someone doesn't keep their word. That isn't theoretical. You can see the result of not keeping one's word.

Most rational human beings would find sacrificing babies (for any reason) to be immoral.   We cannot imagine it being moral.   How does a near 100% agreement among human beings evidence objective morality?    If human beings all agreed (or, to match history, mostly agree) that owning people as property was moral, would that be evidence of objective morality?   How does what any human being believes serve as evidence of objective morality?  How does commonality of human beliefs serve as evidence of objective morality?

But before I go any further, I need to know more about your position. Do you believe actual good and evil exist or do you believe these concepts are merely social constructs? For instance, do you hold that sacrificing babies as burnt offerings can be moral if that is what that group thinks is moral? Or is burning babies as sacrifices wrong no matter what anyone thinks about it? 

I do not know if there is an objective good / evil.   I know that good / evil determinations exist in the moral code of groups (subjective morality).   But for an objective good / evil to exist there must exist a sentient authority to make the determination.   I do not presuppose the existence of a sentient authority, but if one did exist then whatever it deemed good / evil would be objectively true and thus we would have objective morality.

Or is burning babies as sacrifices wrong no matter what anyone thinks about it? 

I think burning babies as sacrifices is wrong no matter what anyone thinks about it.   But I am speaking in terms of my own subjective morality.   My opinion is not evidence that an objective morality exists.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.209  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @1.1.206    one week ago
Sorry, I did not write any of that in the form of a question. Is # 2, in your opinion, an example of objective morality?

I'm sorry, but your example seems to have less to do with what is objectively moral than it does whether or not an individual lives up to the morals they claim. Still not sure what you're after. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.210  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.208    one week ago
I do not know if there is an objective good / evil.

Okay. I'm not sure we can accomplish anything constructive if you do not know this. Unfortunately, I am out of time and cannot address your post with the care it deserves right now. I will attempt to do so on my next weekend, which will begin on Wednesday night. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.211  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.210    one week ago
Okay. I'm not sure we can accomplish anything constructive if you do not know this.

I explained the opening sentence that you quoted:

TiG @1.1.208I do not know if there is an objective good / evil.   I know that good / evil determinations exist in the moral code of groups (subjective morality).   But for an objective good / evil to exist there must exist a sentient authority to make the determination.   I do not presuppose the existence of a sentient authority, but if one did exist then whatever it deemed good / evil would be objectively true and thus we would have objective morality.

Ultimately it would not matter if every human on the planet was in agreement on a moral point like sacrificing babies.   The agreement of human beings offers no evidence of objective good / evil and thus objective morality.   It is consensus, but that is as far as it goes.

In ancient times most everyone believed that slavery (owning another human being as property) was moral (not evil).   Does that mean that slavery is objectively moral?

So it would be helpful for you to explain how you know objective good / evil exists.   Not that you believe it must exist, but real reasons for why it does exist.   We know that subjective good / evil exists because the world is replete with evidence.    Objective good / evil is, seems to me, at best a belief sans evidence.   ( Possible, but unevidenced. )

 
 
 
CB
1.1.212  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.209    one week ago

Thanks?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.213  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.211    one week ago
So it would be helpful for you to explain how you know objective good / evil exists. 

I'm not sure I can explain it to someone who feels it needs explaining. I think this is where materialism fails you. How do you convince someone who isn't sure good and evil exists that raiding a village for slaves for the purpose of selling human beings for personal profit is evil? If good and evil do not exist, then the slaver can't be described as wrong. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.214  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.213    one week ago
How do you convince someone who isn't sure good and evil exists that raiding a village for slaves for the purpose of selling human beings for personal profit is evil? If good and evil do not exist, then the slaver can't be described as wrong. 

Whoa there Drakk.   I did not say I am not sure good and evil exists.   I wrote (and you just quoted it) that I am not sure objective good / evil exists.   

Further I have twice now given additional supporting commentary on that.

Big difference between good / evil versus objective good / evil.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.215  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.214    one week ago
Big difference between good / evil versus objective good / evil.

Okay. Then explain what the difference is. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.216  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.215    one week ago

I have been explaining the difference between objective X and subjective X all along.

What human beings believe to be true is subjective X.   So when you (or a group) consider something to be good or evil that is your subjective view of good / evil.    Even if everyone on the planet believed that a particular act is good, that would not mean the act is objectively good; it would mean it is subjectively good where the domain is all human beings on Earth.  We just all agree it is good.  

To be clear, is something objectively good or evil if ...

  • the majority of people on the planet believe it is?
  • all people on the planet believe it is?

I doubt you would pick either of these since it seems to me that you do not believe human beings are collectively the authority on objective good / evil.   So what human beings believe about good / evil is irrelevant when speaking of what is objectively good or evil.

This is just the same debate using 'good / evil' instead of the word 'morality'.   (Just a different X.)   Thus you will no doubt simply claim that there is no such thing as subjective good / evil.   And that, of course, is merely a claim unless you can explain why (in direct contradiction of overwhelming evidence of subjective good/evil).

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.1.217  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.216    one week ago
I doubt you would pick either of these since it seems to me that you do not believe human beings are collectively the authority on objective good / evil. 

That would probably be correct, assuming I understand what you are saying. Things like the speed of light, gravity, conservation of energy and other similar realities are not subject to human interpretation. Why would it be reasonable that morality is different? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.218  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.217    one week ago

I answered this two days ago @1.1.84 when your first posed it:

TiG @1.1.84 ☞ Actually you might as well generalize this to behavior.  Human beings are limited in our behavior by our physical bodies and our environment.  But within those constraints we can (and some have done) do what most would consider the most immoral of things.   So the rules for our behavior seem to be unwritten.   This is the argument for free will — it appears as though we are free to do whatever is possible for us to do.   But what makes you so sure that behavior is not governed by the laws of physics?   Just because it is too complex for us to (currently) identify the laws in effect?   If you think about it, human beings are composed of atoms which are composed of particles which likely are composed of 'energy' which itself may be composed of something even more basic.   Physics governs all of this, so why would you think that the complex construct of the human brain somehow no longer follows the rules of physics?

Rather than jump off the current focus and return to the past, it would be much better if you would now define objective good / evil and show how one can determine if something is objectively good / evil.   I have already explained subjective good / evil and how we all determine things subjectively good / evil.

What is objective good / evil?

What evidence shows that objective good / evil exists?

Who or what determines if something is objectively good / evil?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.219  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @1.1.203    one week ago
Drakk and Nerm, I have a serious question on this topic of objective morality and I would like your inputs to it. Forgive me, this thought came to me Sunday and I am not sure if this context has been dealt with up (or down) this discussion of morality.
  1. Law is about social morality (what society says is right or wrong).
  2. Objective morality can be along the lines of what we do when no one is around to see us do it (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.)

#1. Is self-explanatory to civilized people.

#2. This is an attitude and behavior which kicks in-in every situation where there is no law. For example, a woman is lost in the woods, and is approached by two men riding in a car. The choices are (loosely):

  1. The two men can overpower her and take from her what they wish. There is no law in a deserted woods.
  2. The two men can give her a lift back to civilization, based on both men wishing anybody who finds either of them wandering in the woods would do so for them.

It's all about a plate of donuts.  There is a plate of donuts on the table and you really, really like donuts.

You could choose to take the whole plate of donuts for yourself.  Who have you harmed?  No one else had the donuts before or after; you didn't take anyone's donuts.  Taking the plate of donuts doesn't change anything other than you satisfy your desire for donuts.

The selfish desire to take the plate of donuts is subjective.

You could choose to take one donut and leave the rest so others have a chance to get a donut, too.  You understand that others really, really like donuts, too.  You have no control over who gets a donut and there isn't a reward to you for sharing.  In fact the choice to share doesn't satisfy your selfish desire nearly as well as would taking the plate of donuts.  The choice to share the donuts is selfless.

The selfless choice isn't subjective; the choice considers unknown others.  The selfless choice is impartial and unbiased by selfish desires, so the selfless choice is objective.  That's the definition of objective:  objective - (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

--------------------

(BTW the idea of a jealous God indicates that God does not always behave objectively since jealousy is a selfish motivation.  The idea that God loves everyone without prejudice would be objective love.  God can behave subjectively and objectively.  And so can humans.  Human ability to make choices between selfish behavior and selfless behavior is a godly trait.)

 
 
 
CB
1.1.220  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.219    one week ago

Thank you for sharing and taking on the act of assisting me. I will reread your comment several times over today. (Smile.)

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.221  Nerm_L  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.204    one week ago
I hold that society treats morality as subjective, but acts as if it is objective. Further, I hold that there is plenty of objective evidence for objective morality. 

I can't agree with that idea.  Consider:

'As a society we should heal the sick and injured whoever they are and whatever their circumstance' is a declaration of objective moral good because it is impartial and unbiased.  

Selfish behavior that interferes with pursuing that objective moral good can be morally judged by society.  Someone that manipulates provision of medical treatment for their selfish benefit is engaged in immoral behavior; they are taking advantage of an objective moral good to enrich themselves.

An objective moral good supersedes and abolishes subjective (selfish) personal rights.  The needs of the many outweighs the desires of the few.  An objective moral good is the justification for society to confiscate property, imprison people, or kill.

Subjective ideas of right or wrong can't be morality since the ideas concern individual selfish interests and behaviors.  Your concerns about your property is not a moral question; that would be a question of right or wrong judged by your selfish interests.  If property taxes harms you then that is a question of right and wrong and not a question of morality.  And if you use an objective moral good to argue for your personal selfish interest then that can be judged by society as immoral.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.222  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.218    one week ago
What is objective good / evil?

An objective good applies to the whole, impartially, regardless of circumstance, and without prejudice motivated by individual self interest.  

What evidence shows that objective good / evil exists?

The preamble of the Declaration of Independence states an objective good.  The preamble of the Declaration is also the conclusion of the Declaration.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Who or what determines if something is objectively good / evil?

Morality achieves objectivity in the same manner that science achieves objectivity.  A moral authority regulates individual subjective biases and prejudices in the same manner as science does.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.223  Nerm_L  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.217    one week ago
That would probably be correct, assuming I understand what you are saying. Things like the speed of light, gravity, conservation of energy and other similar realities are not subject to human interpretation. Why would it be reasonable that morality is different? 

But all of these are subject to human interpretation.  That isn't why these characteristics are objective.  

The speed of light, gravity, and conservation of energy apply everywhere without prejudice or bias.  That's what makes these characteristics objective. 

Seems to me that everyone is misunderstanding what 'objective' means.

objective -- (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

The observation of the speed of light is not influenced by personal beliefs or personal interests.  That's why the speed of light is an objective characteristic.  

Disbelieving the speed of light would be a subjective conclusion that doesn't affect the speed of light in any way.  Subjectivity won't influence something that is objective.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.224  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @1.1.220    one week ago
Thank you for sharing and taking on the act of assisting me. I will reread your comment several times over today. (Smile.)

Are you willing to take the red pill, Neo?  There are far reaching aspects of morality and Christianity that can be explored.  IMO there are profound reasons why Christianity is very different than other religions.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.225  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.223    one week ago
The speed of light, gravity, and conservation of energy apply everywhere without prejudice or bias.  That's what makes these characteristics objective.

Yes, those things are objective. They effect matter in the university regardless of whether it's a star, insect, cow or human. But that just goes to prove there is no such thing as objective morality since claiming killing a human is usually considered immoral while killing a cow, in most countries, is considered lunch.

There is no external objective recognition that separates humans from any other life on this planet. Humans are the only ones who place any extra value on themselves thus it can only ever be seen as subjective.

Until anyone can prove there is an external force that places a higher value on humans than cows or other matter in the universe, we must accept that any perceived morality that places a higher value on humans than other life forms is subjective. We are the subjects, and place value on ourselves which is why harming other humans is subjectively immoral. Lions and tigers and other predators don't care a wit about our subjective morality, they will eat our faces off if given the opportunity. The pressure building beneath a volcano doesn't care how many humans or other animals have made their homes on its slopes, when the eruption hits it's not worried about human casualties, it's not delaying the eruption till human evacuations can be completed.

To believe in any objective morality one must first believe in some unseen, unproven external power that governs matter in this universe and sets the rules and favors humans over other forms of life. So without any evidence of such, there can be know definable objective morality, it is purely subjective based on the feelings and emotions of those defining what is good and bad.

If you're a believer, you might believe that mankind usurped Gods role in defining morality when Eve gave Adam the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. But one has to accept the bible then as the arbiter of all objective morality and reject the Koran, bhagavad gita and any other religious documents claiming to contain "divinely inspired" morality. But until anyone can actually  prove their version of God exists, even that becomes a subjective debate full of the feelings and emotions of humans who have literally fought to the death over whose God is real and which supposedly "divinely inspired" morality is "objective".

At the moment, anything we call "moral" as humans is purely subjective as no God or Gods have ever been proven, therefore the origin of any such morality must, by definition, be subjective. Just because in India it is morally reprehensible to kill a cow, that doesn't make it "objective morality" unless their God is proven to be the true creator of the universe. Until then, enjoy your burgers and steaks, because you know it's subjective morality that only applies to the groups who subjectively decide on what is good and bad, what is moral and immoral.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.226  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.224    one week ago

Sure! Go for it! (I loved The Matrix Trilogy.)

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.227  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.225    one week ago
Yes, those things are objective. They effect matter in the university regardless of whether it's a star, insect, cow or human. But that just goes to prove there is no such thing as objective morality since claiming killing a human is usually considered immoral while killing a cow, in most countries, is considered lunch.

Simply killing a human is not, by itself, immoral.  Killing a human can be universally wrong according to law but isn't universally evil according to morality.

To believe in any objective morality one must first believe in some unseen, unproven external power that governs matter in this universe and sets the rules and favors humans over other forms of life. So without any evidence of such, there can be know definable objective morality, it is purely subjective based on the feelings and emotions of those defining what is good and bad.

Flatly, no.  The only necessity for objective morality is to remove subjective self interest.  Objective morality is selfless; therefore, cannot be subjective.  That's the distinction between law and morality.  Law deals with conflicts between selfish interests while morality deals with conflicts between selfishness and selflessness.

At the moment, anything we call "moral" as humans is purely subjective as no God or Gods have ever been proven, therefore the origin of any such morality must, by definition, be subjective. Just because in India it is morally reprehensible to kill a cow, that doesn't make it "objective morality" unless their God is proven to be the true creator of the universe. Until then, enjoy your burgers and steaks, because you know it's subjective morality that only applies to the groups who subjectively decide on what is good and bad, what is moral and immoral.

That interpretation is based upon the selfish interests of organized Christian religion.  An important point to understand is that Christianity applied morality to God; humanity can morally judge God.  Organized churches have not taught that because their selfish desire for maintaining moral authority depends upon only God being the judge of morality.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.228  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @1.1.226    one week ago
Sure! Go for it! (I loved The Matrix Trilogy.)

Okay, let's see how far down the rabbit hole we can go.  First let's see if we agree on fundamental principles and ideas.

Christianity is only about the Jesus thing.  Christianity isn't about Abraham, Moses, Solomon, David, or the tribes of Israel, for that matter.  The sum total of Christianity is about Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth was a teacher of selfless morality.  Jesus taught to follow him requires hating the world and life itself; following Jesus requires becoming selfless.  And Jesus confirmed the selfless objectivity of his moral teachings by allowing himself to be killed as the ultimate final selfless sacrifice.

While a condensed summary, does that capture the essence of Christianity?

(Many religions portray gods as making selfless sacrifices so, IMO, Jesus being a teacher of selfless morality and making a selfless sacrifice isn't particularly different than other religions.  There's more to the story.)

 
 
 
CB
1.1.229  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.227    one week ago

Nerm and DP, this is an interesting exchange taking place between you. I see points of interests from you both. (Smile. - This is almost looking for its own article at this point.)

 
 
 
CB
1.1.230  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.228    one week ago

Okay. . . .

Now then, are you accepting of the  'whole' New Testament (including the Epistles, Apostles letters to the Churches, and Revelation?

Moreover, do you accept the Old Testament as a 'reference' material, which leads up to the revealing of Jesus Christ?

—I do.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.231  Ender  replied to  CB @1.1.230    one week ago

I always thought the the two should be considered separately, then someone said to me...Without the old there wouldn't be the new. The two are intertwined if not only for that reason alone.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.232  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.227    one week ago
The only necessity for objective morality is to remove subjective self interest.

Does objective morality as you define it—  exist?   If so, where is it and who is the defining authority?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.233  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @1.1.230    one week ago
Now then, are you accepting of the  'whole' New Testament (including the Epistles, Apostles letters to the Churches, and Revelation? Moreover, do you accept the Old Testament as a 'reference' material, which leads up to the revealing of Jesus Christ?

Answering those questions requires going deeper down the rabbit hole.

Jesus of Nazareth was part human and part God.  Jesus of Nazareth was a teacher of selfless morality and died a selfless death.  Jesus Christ is the judge of selfless morality.  And Jesus Christ can morally judge humanity AND morally judge God.  God is the creator but Jesus Christ placed the moral authority in us.  (Which, I hope, raises questions.)

Jesus Christ cannot be King.  Jesus Christ cannot command humanity to obey because that command would be an act of selfishness.  And anyone commanding humanity to obey in the name of Jesus Christ has engaged in an act of selfishness.

We are on our own now.  We must choose.  Jesus Christ placed the moral authority on our shoulders.  And we will be morally judged on choices we make.

Jesus of Nazareth taught that he did not come to abolish the law and prophets; he came to fulfill them.  Jesus Christ is not an enforcer of law or maker of law.  Jesus Christ taught the purpose of law was to be selfless.

The 'whole' of the New Testament should be morally judged according to the selfless morality taught by Jesus of Nazareth.  And we are the moral authority to judge the whole of the New Testament.  IMO some of the New Testament is not morally correct.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.234  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.232    one week ago
Does objective morality as you define it—  exist?

Yes.

If so, where is it and who is the defining authority?

Objective morality resides in humanity and humanity is the moral authority.

Free will is a prerequisite for moral authority.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.235  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.234    one week ago

If most of humanity holds that slavery is moral, then is slavery ipso facto objectively moral?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.236  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.227    one week ago
Objective morality is selfless; therefore, cannot be subjective

If it's a human determining what is moral, then it can only be subjective as there is no way to separate our selves from the equation.

Since so far, no one has verified some external source of morality, and humans are unable to separate out their feelings and emotions when determining what is good and bad, what is moral and immoral, then there can only be subjective morality until such an outside force is proven. Just claiming that your God told you what is good and bad, moral and immoral, is not enough to make it objective. Even if a God did give you some instruction you could prove, unless its coming to all humans directly from the objective source, it's still subject to human interpretation.

We place a value on human life that the universe does not. The universe doesn't care a bit about intent, it requires a human to define the intent as good or bad, moral or immoral.

"Organized churches have not taught that because their selfish desire for maintaining moral authority depends upon only God being the judge of morality."

Since there is no objective evidence of God, that is all they can do, subjectively claim the right to determine good and bad themselves or claim to be interpreting the supposed "objective morality" being passed to them from their chosen deity.

There simply can be no objective morality until the arbiter of that objective morality is proven. You can claim all day that you believe you're following some divinely inspired objective morality, but you cannot in any way prove that it is not merely the subjective morality decided on by ancient man or the subjective interpretation by modern man.

There are far reaching aspects of morality and Christianity that can be explored.  IMO there are profound reasons why Christianity is very different than other religions.

It seems you are advocating that Christianity is the true religion and the basis for the supposed objective morality, yet you seem unwilling to accept that they are just another flavor of religion that has claimed for itself the moral high ground, claimed its God is the true God, the creator and the only source of objective morality. But without being able to objectively prove with empirical evidence that the God Christians worship actually exists, you're left with the simple reality that Christian morality is also purely subjective. If you have some evidence to show that the Christian God does exist and that you and other Christians have the correct interpretation of that Gods will, then you can claim to have objective morality, but that is merely your personal opinion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.237  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.236    one week ago
If it's a human determining what is moral, then it can only be subjective as there is no way to separate our selves from the equation.

jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.238  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.235    one week ago
If most of humanity holds that slavery is moral, then slavery is ipso facto objectively moral?

Slavery, in and of itself, is neither moral or immoral.  The motivation for slavery determines whether or not slavery is good or evil.  A selfish motivation for slavery would be an unqualified evil.  A selfish motivation means that laws allowing slavery are subjective and could not be objectively moral.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.239  CB   replied to  Ender @1.1.231    one week ago
Without the old there wouldn't be the new.

Good entry point! "Without the old there wouldn't be the new." Let's understand some things:

  1. The Bible opens up with Abram/ham in context of this discussion.
  2. Abraham was not a citizen of Israel. He came before the nation's founding, and he believed God through faith and not (national) Law.
  3. Under Moses, the Law came into existence (civil, ceremonial, moral).
  4. When Jesus came on the scene. Jesus lived under the Law.
  5. At Jesus' death, it is written, that the 'temple veil' was ripped (down). No longer would men and women have to abide the ceremonial law. Couple that, with the knowledge that Jesus' followers would soon be 'scattered' away from the Temple and Jerusalem and you, we, can see the 'separation' developing.
  6. Jesus capped it off in a parable:
      33 And they said to Him, “The disciples of John often fast and offer prayers, the disciples of the Pharisees also do the same, but Yours eat and drink.” 34 And Jesus said to them, “You cannot make the attendants of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you? 35 “But the days will come; and when the bridegroom is taken away from them, then they will fast in those days.” 36 And He was also telling them a parable: “No one tears a piece of cloth from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will both tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 “And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined. 38 But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins . 39 And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, ‘The old is good enough . ’” 

    By this Jesus meant, the Old Testament (Covenant) would remain (forever) for the Jewish people. However, the New Testament (Covenant) would be for the Church (coming into being).

  7. Finally, Apostle Paul, capped it off with an explanation. Galatians 4:28: And you brethren, a like Isaac, are b children of Promise (Faith).

    That is, as juxtaposed to children of the Law (of Moses).   Note: this last scriptural reference is not one I want to render at this time, but I will have to look up the 'better one' at another time.

Hope this starts a good exchange between us!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.240  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.236    one week ago
If it's a human determining what is moral, then it can only be subjective as there is no way to separate our selves from the equation.

It isn't A human that determines what is moral.  That's no different than A scientist not being allowed to declare a scientific truth.

The objectivity of morality is achieved the same way that the objectivity of science is achieved.  An individual scientist declaring a conclusion is valid wouldn't be objective, either.  Morality, like scientific conclusions, requires independent scrutiny and testing.  A declaration of what is moral can be refuted just as scientific theories can be refuted.

Moral understanding is a group effort just as scientific understanding is a group effort.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.241  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.233    one week ago
The 'whole' of the New Testament should be morally judged according to the selfless morality taught by Jesus of Nazareth.  And we are the moral authority to judge the whole of the New Testament.  IMO some of the New Testament is not morally correct.

I am not sure I can follow your reasoning from the New Testament in all that you wrote, but I am 'drawn' to this for more elaboration, if you can provide it:

  1. What is morally incorrect in the New Testament? Please give example/s.
 
 
 
CB
1.1.242  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.240    one week ago

So for humanity to have an objective morality it would have to come from outside of ourselves? Is this what you mean? And, if that which is outside of humanity to provide objective morality will have to have a Mind, is this correct?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.243  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.238    one week ago

Name something that you accept as objectively immoral.   Substitute whatever you pick for X below and answer the resulting question:

If most of humanity holds that X is moral, then is X ipso facto objectively moral?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.244  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.241    one week ago
What is morally incorrect in the New Testament? Please give example/s.

How about this?:

Romans 1:24-28   New International Version (NIV)

24  Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25  They exchanged the truth about God for a lie,and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.Amen.

26  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts .Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural one s. 27  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another . Men committed shameful acts with other men , and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28  Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.245  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @1.1.242    one week ago
So for humanity to have an objective morality it would have to come from outside of ourselves? Is this what you mean? And, if that which is outside of humanity to provide objective morality will have to have a Mind, is this correct?

Well, since every law comes from outside ourselves then all laws must be objectively moral?

Since there seems to be a problem understanding 'objective', let's try to approach the question from the subjective.  Let's promote you to King of the universe.  Every living thing in the universe must obey your commands or be punished.  Only you, as King of the universe, can declare what is right and wrong; no other living thing in the universe can object.

Since only you can define what is right and wrong, is what you command objective or subjective?

 
 
 
CB
1.1.246  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.244    one week ago

What is your issue with this? And, why do you keep pushing homosexuality in the Bible into my face? By now, you have heard ever 'mode' I take regarding my states of existence. So, what is it to you that Paul considers some form or all forms of homosexuality as immoral? Paul, it is implied in scripture,

  1. lived a celibate life,
  2. Grew up under the Law of Moses.
  3. Could (some believe - I don't delve with the 'concern') have been writing about temple prostitutes.
  4. And lastly, I know what it is as one who spent time in the homosexual 'world' and apart from it.
  5. The text can not be changed. It is what it is. One can either accept it, deny it, live with it to the best of their ability, or ignore it entirely.

One thing, I can not do is 'classify' it as morally incorrect, because its context, while plain unfortunately is not clear as to purpose.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.247  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.245    one week ago

My commands are objective. For purposes of clarity and less ambiguity, please be as plain as possible. (Smile.)

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.248  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.243    one week ago
If most of humanity holds that X is moral, then is X ipso facto objectively moral?

If most of humanity holds that sharing the donuts X is moral (or good), then sharing X is objectively moral (or objectively good).

That's a lesson parents try to teach toddlers.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.249  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.246    one week ago

You asked for an example and I gave you one.   

One thing, I can not do is 'classify' it as morally incorrect, because its context, while plain unfortunately is not clear as to purpose.

Of course ... context .     jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.250  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.248    one week ago

Then, as you see it, we (human beings) collectively determine objective morality.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.251  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @1.1.247    one week ago
My commands are objective. For purposes of clarity and less ambiguity, please be as plain as possible. (Smile.)

Your commands can't be objective because they are declared as 'I command'.  The statement 'I am as I am' is a statement of self awareness, made subjectively.  "I command because I am King" is a statement of self awareness, made subjectively.

Subjective -- based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

You knowing who you are is subjective.  That's why God can make laws but God can't be the moral authority that determines what is good and what is evil.

A King (or God) can only make laws because the self awareness of being King cannot be removed.  The King's authority to command is subjective because of the declaration 'I command because I am King'.

We attempt to govern objectively through elections.  Are election results more objective or more subjective?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.252  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.250    one week ago
Then, as you see it, we (human beings) collectively determine objective morality.

Yes, humans collectively as humanity determines objective morality.  But keep in mind that 'humanity' spans historical, generational, and geopolitical boundaries.  Objective morality is not constrained by time and place.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.253  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.252    one week ago

In my view, any morality determined by human beings, no matter how large the group and no matter how long the mores have been in place, is still subjective morality.   It might be the highest form of subjective morality, but subjective nonetheless.

Objective morality necessarily comes from an authority superior to human beings.   The most obvious authority meeting this criterion is the creator entity (should one exist).

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.254  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.240    one week ago
Moral understanding is a group effort just as scientific understanding is a group effort.

Moral understanding and scientific understanding are nothing alike. In science, it's not just a consensus opinion as moral understanding would be, it's usually one scientist who makes a scientific breakthrough using repeated testing and observance that then shares this new understanding of the natural world so other scientists can do the same tests and draw their own conclusions. If they do the test and it supports the original scientists conclusions, then it is adopted as scientific truth, but it is also open to change at any time if new discoveries are able to better explain and better test (often with better instruments/tools) the conclusions. Science asks to be rigorously challenged and is open to new and better understandings when they are discovered.

Moral understanding is blatantly, obviously subjective with one person or a group of persons suggesting that a thing that they like or dislike (based on their feelings and emotions) be considered good or bad, moral or immoral. Then, when presented to the community at large, is agreed upon and a consensus formed, but still a subjective consensus. And morality hasn't always required group think since most often in human history morality has simply been handed down from those in power, whether that be the Church, Emperors, Kings, regents and despots. You try telling Caligula it was morally reprehensible to sleep with his grandmother when he was at the height of his power.

I watched a recent show on cheetahs that had a female being courted by a young male and they were going at it when a second older male shows up. Now, usually the two males would fight for the right to mate with the female, but in this case it turned out the older male was the young males father. So instead of fighting, they just started taking turns, the young male just watching as his dad hammered away. Now, for humans, we might think "Eeeew!" that's so immoral, but we only think that because we're humans and can't imagine humans doing that. We have a different standard for ourselves, we have different rules for ourselves which is the very definition of subjective morality. If swapping sex partners with your parent back and forth was objectively immoral then it would be for all creatures, not just humans.

Objective morality would be something that applied to the entire universe, not just to a single species of hairless apes who, for some reason, have begun to think themselves the center of the universe.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.255  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.253    one week ago
Objective morality necessarily comes from an authority superior to human beings.   The most obvious authority meeting this criterion is the creator entity (should one exist).

Can the observed social behavior of species be classified and quantified?  Is the observed social behavior of a species objective or subjective?

Morality is concerned with the social behavior of the human species.  Is the social behavior of the human species objective or subjective?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.256  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.254    one week ago
Objective morality would be something that applied to the entire universe, not just to a single species of hairless apes who, for some reason, have begun to think themselves the center of the universe.

No, that's not what objective means.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.257  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.249    one week ago

I don't care if you are impressed or not. In fact, the Bible and its writers are not attempting to IMPRESS anybody. There are times here when people of faith - want and dare I say NEED to communicate a point to one another. This question was not ADDRESSED to you - it was to Nerm who shares interest in my (Christian) beliefs. I am absolutely positive you do not share interest in my beliefs or care to understand a believer's mindset.

It is not necessary or helpful to spread a specific 'brand' of skepticism at each and every opportunity-save 'some' for when it can do its worse damage to the Faith. /s

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.258  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.257    one week ago

The real problem, it seems, is that you asked a question and I gave you scripture that you do not want to accept.

Note that I did not offer any interpretation.   I just quoted the scripture and left it at that.   

You, in turn, immediately made it personal (big surprise) and continue to do so.

Public forum.   We can all chime in.   If you ask a question and you get an answer that directly quotes scripture that you do not like, a response of anger rather than a reasoned direct rebuttal speaks volumes.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.259  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.255    one week ago
Can the observed social behavior of species be classified and quantified? 

Yes.  Social behavior is heavily and seriously studied in fields such as behavioral biology, anthropology, psychology, sociology.

Is the observed social behavior of a species objective or subjective?

Subjective.

Morality is concerned with the social behavior of the human species.  Is the social behavior of the human species objective or subjective?

Subjective.


I am at a loss to see how this follows from my post.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.260  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.256    one week ago

I agree with DP that objective morality is necessarily at a level superior to all human beings.   If there is an objective morality it would be the subjective morality of our sentient creator (should it exist).   And if our sentient creator exists, its objective morality would be the subjective morality of its creator (should it exist).

 
 
 
CB
1.1.261  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.251    one week ago

I considered what you are stating, and chose to respond providing the answer I did. Here's why: It is clear to me that (as king) the laws would be subjective from me (I am King) - however, in context of what was wrote:

Every living thing in the universe must obey your commands or be punished.  Only you, as King of the universe, can declare what is right and wrong; no other living thing in the universe can object.

From the perspective of the "living things" other than Me - It is a law/s I have provided as an objective standard for My universe. In other words, Some One (a Mind) or Circumstances In the Universe gets to establish how the universe operates to its maximum efficiency. Taking for granted, efficiency is the goal to be sought.

That is, God or Nature will establish what is permissible for all 'subordinate' creatures.

Yes, from God's perspective the lists involve its Person. However, the outgoing command/s from God are objective commands to all subordinate creatures because such morals should embrace and manage everyone- in our case, on this planet

 
 
 
CB
1.1.262  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.258    one week ago

I can give you VOLUME, but this is not what we should come here to be. The real problem is you dislike scripture 'AND THE HORSE IT RODE IN ON' so you continuous make attempts to stick your finger in its eye. Well, some of us DO like scripture -and we've learned to encapsulate and accept the 'Dirty' of it. You don't like that either. So you stick your finger in its eye. You can't interpret scripture, because you do not accept that it is spiritual in any sense. Heck! You don't even like or have a practical application for the word, "Spiritual."

So why not give me a break from the incessant "check" on my homosexuality? I can assure you from what you allow to be revealed (not much) about yourself, I know more about the 'in and outs' of homosexuality and lack thereof performing than you ever shall. You can just consider it, that I have evidences and experiences enough to willing share. You—not so much!

As for the Bible, there is a high probability you would stand on the Book, before you elucidate it as meaningful and valuable.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.263  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.262    one week ago

Stop making everything personal.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.264  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.263    one week ago

Stop making everything th?id=OIP.2envCoFZRQyCYmqGk0cGOAD2D9&w=1 . If you are writing about homosexuality to a homosexual -it's a given its personal. I do not attempt providing a 'check' on anybody's heterosexuality. I simply accept what-is and wish them all well at it. At least, that is what I like to think I do!

From the first century, Paul came out of a 'straight' culture and became 'devoted' to his Lord. Of course, he likely not having any same-sex relation/ship would not look upon the activity as helpful, in fact, he could berate it. Interestingly, he so assumed people would know what type or 'style' of homosexuality he was writing about such that he does not elaborate overly much on it - and, it has caused great angst in the churches to this day.

What it boils down to is homosexuals in the Church have to deal with what they have in the writings- and at the same time be true to themselves. Now, homosexuals have learned various 'coping' mechanisms - including living by faith and trusting God will understand their heart at the appropriate time of their end. 

Much could be said on this point. But, it rarely if ever gets that deep about homosexuality on NT.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.265  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.264    one week ago

Reminder on what you asked and my full answer:

CB @ 1.1.241 ⇨ What is morally incorrect in the New Testament? Please give example/s.

Here was my answer in its entirety:


TiG @ 1.1.244 ⇨ How about this?: Romans 1:24-28   New International Version (NIV)

24   Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.   25   They exchanged the truth about God for a lie,and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.Amen.

26   Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts .Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural one s.   27   In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another . Men committed shameful acts with other men , and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28   Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

I quoted the New Testament as my answer.  I did not weigh in on it, just quoted it.   Given you are openly homosexual on NT it is a pretty good bet that you do not consider homosexuality immoral ergo quoting scripture that suggests homosexuality is immoral directly answers the question you asked.

It was a perfect answer IMO.

Direct your emotion at the scripture.   I did not write it and I do not agree with its position.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.266  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.254    one week ago
Objective morality would be something that applied to the entire universe, not just to a single species of hairless apes who, for some reason, have begun to think themselves the center of the universe.

That would depend on everyone and every place in the universe speaking the same "language". 

I would imagine there are places in the universe where the goal is not to experience morality, but maybe just to eat or be eaten. 

Morality requires a certain type of consciousness that can be self regarding.  In other words an understanding of right and wrong. We dont know to what extent, or even if, such concepts apply elsewhere than on earth. 

My guess would be there is no objective morality throughout the universe. 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.267  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.265    one week ago

You have my answer @ 1.1.246 and @ 1.1.262 . Why not accept it and let it go ALREADY?! You won't get it. But, I'm okay with that. Why can't you be okay ALREADY? We can't all live our lives in a ' clinical state of mind' like I reckon you do. Or as you would have us think you do.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.268  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.267    one week ago

I am not the one making a big deal of this.   I gave you what seems to be a perfect answer to your question.   I was done.   My comments now are simply dealing with your emotionally charged accusations and exaggerations.

Again, I did not write the scripture, I just quoted it.   Take it up with Paul.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.269  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.268    one week ago

Tig, you are not seeing emotion from me. It is a delusion that is emanating from your computer.

I have forgotten more about Paul and Romans than you care to grasp. I have read and reread and 'captured' every thought on the issues of homosexuality 'delivered' in the books of the Bible. Moreover, I have long ago come to a conclusion of how to deal with what the Books write on the topic. If I needed counsel on what the Bible means by homosexuality - why in the world would I EVER ask an atheist? Hmm? Think about it. Why would you be on my targeted list of scriptural illuminators?

I know you like to pretend that you are 'above it all' and that you 'take the high road' while casting others in roles of your select for them. But, you likely don't know enough about being homosexual to ever convince me of anything in theory or practice. I could even dare say Paul in his lifetime may have known more about the 'display' and practice itself! It's speculation on my part-but, nevermind, you have even less to go on.

What you are seeing from me is this: Not every comment is 'tilted' to the wise atheist in the inner circle. This is not a clinic on homosexuality that you sought to turn it into. Nerm and I were, are, experimenting on a finer point of Christianity and you 'dove' in head first. It was vulgar, and I wanted you to know that from me. That's all.

My emotions are guarded. Now, take that up in your next 'clinic.' Good night. (Smile.)

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.270  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.256    one week ago
No, that's not what objective means.

Objective: adjective - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

No human can define morality without being influenced by personal feelings or opinions. There is zero evidence of any God or Gods. We have no external input, no outside arbiter informing us of a morality free from our personal feelings and opinions. If such an arbiter existed, why would it have different "objective morality" for humans than for other animals on this planet? If you believe that there is such a thing as objective morality that only applies to humans, why? What led you to such a belief? It seems to me that the very subjective personal feelings and opinions of your own importance may have something to do with that belief, but why would some cosmic creator share your subjectivity?

Also, in the definition of objective it is directly related to "representing facts". Where in any concept of "morality" do you find facts? What "fact" about morality can you present free of personal feelings or opinions? What great universal truth about morality can you present that is clearly objective that would be true regardless of all human feeling and opinion?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.271  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.269    one week ago

I quoted scripture and provided no other information.  Your highly emotional personal attacks in response are over-the-top inappropriate.   Work out the seeming cognitive dissonance rather than blame me (or others) when scripture does not align with your views.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.272  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.270    one week ago
No human can define morality without being influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

Yes, a single human will always be influenced by subjectivity.  

There is zero evidence of any God or Gods. We have no external input, no outside arbiter informing us of a morality free from our personal feelings and opinions.

But we can observe the social behavior of the human species objectively.  That's not any different than observing anything else in the universe objectively.  

Since we live inside the universe and are part of the universe, we cannot obtain external input about anything in the universe.  If our understanding of the universe required external input then 'God did it' would be the only rational explanation for anything we observe.  Our understanding of the universe has only been obtained by internal input observed objectively. 

Humans have discovered that objectivity overcomes the need for external input.

If such an arbiter existed, why would it have different "objective morality" for humans than for other animals on this planet? If you believe that there is such a thing as objective morality that only applies to humans, why? What led you to such a belief? It seems to me that the very subjective personal feelings and opinions of your own importance may have something to do with that belief, but why would some cosmic creator share your subjectivity?

An external arbiter means we wouldn't need any sort of morality.  An external arbiter would simply need to command and punish.  An external arbiter can only impose laws guided by the arbiter's morality.  The only choice allowed to humans and creatures would be to obey the laws or accept punishment.  (BTW an external arbiter is the basis for orthodox religion's power structure and authority to command and punish.)

There are distinct recognizable differences between species.  However, there are objectively observed social behaviors that are similar across species.  A universal morality for all living things is not as far fetched as you are suggesting.  Humans have learned to observe everything around us objectively and explain what we observe without the need for 'God did it'.  

Also, in the definition of objective it is directly related to "representing facts". Where in any concept of "morality" do you find facts? What "fact" about morality can you present free of personal feelings or opinions? What great universal truth about morality can you present that is clearly objective that would be true regardless of all human feeling and opinion?

Isn't an observation what constitutes a fact?  And observations obtained objectively would be objective facts.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.273  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.265    one week ago
I quoted the New Testament as my answer.  I did not weigh in on it, just quoted it.   Given you are openly homosexual on NT it is a pretty good bet that you do not consider homosexuality immoral ergo quoting scripture that suggests homosexuality is immoral directly answers the question you asked.

Why not quote the cause rather than the result?

Romans 1:18-23

18  The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19  since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,so that people are without excuse. 21  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23  and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Notice that Paul is speaking about secular beliefs as cause for a fall from grace?  

--------------------

BTW 'wrath' is a recognized sin.  God's wrath means God has sinned.  That's why I question the moral underpinnings of Paul's writings.

Paul used God as justification for laws but the morality of some of those laws is questionable.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.274  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @1.1.261    one week ago
From the perspective of the "living things" other than Me - It is a law/s I have provided as an objective standard for My universe. In other words, Some One (a Mind) or Circumstances In the Universe gets to establish how the universe operates to its maximum efficiency. Taking for granted, efficiency is the goal to be sought.

That is, God or Nature will establish what is permissible for all 'subordinate' creatures.

Yes, from God's perspective the lists involve its Person. However, the outgoing command/s from God are objective commands to all subordinate creatures because such morals should embrace and manage everyone- in our case, on this planet

Yes, that's the point.  A King of the universe can only command and punish.  The only choice for 'subordinate' creatures is to obey or accept punishment.

A King of the universe cannot impose morality; a King can only command and punish.  Morality concerns making a choice; free will is a prerequisite for morality.  

The King's law may be guided by the King's morality which means the moral underpinning for law is subjective.  No one else has a choice other than to obey or be punished.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.275  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.272    one week ago
Isn't an observation what constitutes a fact?  And observations obtained objectively would be objective facts.

An observation of or about morality is purely anecdotal. And if the being doing the observing is human I submit the ability to do so completely objectively, free of any feeling or emotion, an impossibility. We can only view ourselves through the tainted lens of our own feelings, our own experiences and exposure.

Even our supposed "objective" view of the universe isn't true objectivity, though we can come closer to it when the subject isn't ourselves. But any study of humans and human nature is always tempered by our own personality, morality, upbringing, emotions and opinion no matter how hard we might try to be objective. This is why I believe "objective morality" to be simply impossible for humans to ever achieve. It would take removing feelings and emotion, turning a human into a robot devoid of any connection to the human condition to truly claim an understanding of "objective morality".

But the real crime here is that virtually every world religion claims to have objective morality with which they attempt to control humanity when in actuality their morality is very very subjective.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.276  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.273    one week ago
Why not quote the cause rather than the result?

Because CB asked this:

CB @   1.1.241  ⇨ What is morally incorrect in the New Testament? Please give example/s.

The scripture I quoted directly suggests immorality on a matter that I was confident CB would not consider to be immoral.    Given the reaction, it apparently is spot on.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.277  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.271    one week ago

Perpetual 'victim' is not a good look. That comment was just the latest volley in an ongoing drama.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.278  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.276    one week ago

Wrong. But, typical. And your prove the point! You pull that and an 'assortment' of other little gems out of the Bible routinely in a game of gotcha! Well, you don't 'got' anything (but you can't possibly accept that). Sometimes,this time, I am sure you do not know what the hell you are writing about. You have my answers @ 1.1.246 and @ 1.1.262 . That's all.

Are you here just for the "labs"?  /s

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.279  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.278    one week ago

Fascinating.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.280  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.275    one week ago
An observation of or about morality is purely anecdotal. And if the being doing the observing is human I submit the ability to do so completely objectively, free of any feeling or emotion, an impossibility. We can only view ourselves through the tainted lens of our own feelings, our own experiences and exposure.

But a series of anecdotes establishes a trend.  We really can objectively observe how personal feelings influence behavior.  That is the basis for marketing.  And marketing wouldn't work if the influence of feelings wasn't consistent throughout a population.  So, this one example of marketing demonstrates that human behavior can be understood objectively. 

Consistent human behavior across cultures throughout history can be characterized as species behavior; which we typically refer to as human nature.  The identified characteristics of human nature does allow an objective characterization of good and evil.  

 Morality is a human trait and behavior.  So, understanding morality would necessarily require objectively understanding human nature.  

Objective understanding of human nature would objectively define morality.

But the real crime here is that virtually every world religion claims to have objective morality with which they attempt to control humanity when in actuality their morality is very very subjective.

I see it differently.  Orthodox religions are actually claiming authority to impose laws and punishment.  Religious law isn't a choice; the requirement is to obey or be punished.  Churches claim God, as the moral authority, places God in the position of the only law giver.  The church is the enforcer of God's law.  Churches do not claim objectivity; God's morality establishes God's law and God has endowed the church with the divine authority to enforce God's law.  There isn't any humanity in a church's morality or law.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.281  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.276    one week ago
The scripture I quoted directly suggests immorality on a matter that I was confident CB would not consider to be immoral.    Given the reaction, it apparently is spot on.

But the scripture you quoted didn't answer the question.  Your quote is based upon 'lust' and lust is a recognized sin.

The moral contradiction is actually in verse 18.  Wrath is a recognized sin and God's wrath means God has sinned.  That's a moral contradiction according to the selfless morality taught by Jesus.  Paul directly contradicted the teachings of Jesus.

One of Jesus' teachings is that we should 'treat others as we wish to be treated' (the Golden rule).  The passage in Romans suggests that God's wrath gave those who became secular over to sin.  Wrath is sinful and giving others over to sin suggest God chooses to be given over to sin, as well. 

The passage is consistent but Paul describes God as immoral according to the teachings of Jesus.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.282  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.281    one week ago
Your quote is based upon 'lust' and lust is a recognized sin.

Homosexual lust.   Did you not read this carefully, note the red parts?:

TiG @ 1.1.244 ⇨ How about this?: Romans 1:24-28   New International Version (NIV)

24   Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.   25   They exchanged the truth about God for a lie,and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.Amen.

26   Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts .Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural one s.   27   In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another . Men committed shameful acts with other men , and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28   Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

Not sure how anyone could miss the fact that this passage is referring to homosexual lust as shameful lust.   CB certainly saw this as evidenced by his over-the-top reaction.   The shameful adjective is making a comment on homosexual acts.   And if the NT considers homosexuality to be shameful it is a bit difficult to argue that it would consider it moral.   Ergo, we have one (of many) examples in the NT where it gets morality wrong.   This should be obvious unless you consider homosexuality to be immoral and, if so, I am not interested in trying to persuade you otherwise.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.283  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.282    one week ago

th?id=OIP.2envCoFZRQyCYmqGk0cGOAD2D9&w=1

From the first century, Paul came out of a 'straight' culture and became 'devoted' to his Lord. Of course, he likely, not having any same-sex relation/ship, would not look upon the activity as helpful, in fact, he could berate it. Interestingly, he so assumed people would know what type or 'style' of homosexuality he was writing about such that he does not elaborate overly much on it - and, it has caused great angst in the churches to this day.

What it boils down to is homosexuals in the Church have to deal with what they have in the writings and at the same time be true to themselves. Now, homosexuals have learned various 'coping' mechanisms - including living by faith alone and trusting God will understand their heart at the appropriate time of their end. 

Of course, Tig, has his views on the homosexual way of life and somehow Ti'g's views outweigh anything homosexuals can develop or experience over the span of a lifetime. /s

Go figure that one out.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.284  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.282    one week ago
Homosexual lust.   Did you not read this carefully, note the red parts?:

Lust is lust.  And lust is sin.  Allowing ones' behavior to be controlled by sexual desires is not moral.

Not sure how anyone could miss the fact that this passage is referring to homosexual lust as shameful lust.   CB certainly saw this as evidenced by his over-the-top reaction.   The shameful adjective is making a comment on homosexual acts.   And if the NT considers homosexuality to be shameful it is a bit difficult to argue that it would consider it moral.   Ergo, we have one (of many) examples in the NT where it gets morality wrong.   This should be obvious unless you consider homosexuality to be immoral and, if so, I am not interested in trying to persuade you otherwise.

Homosexuality was far more common sexual behavior in Rome at that time than today and certainly wouldn't be shocking.  'Shameful lust' indicates that the accepted sexual behavior was only motivated by sexual desire, which is sinful. 

Yes, the 'unnatural' aspect of same gender sexual behavior is titillating today but not so much at that time.  Paul's real message from the passage is about secularism.  Paul is using homosexuality as a gimmick to drive home the point that turning away from God and becoming secular results in moral depravity and unnatural behavior.  

Romans 1:18-23 describes the cause.    Romans 1:24-28   describes the effect.

A secular morality (the cause) results in a sinful society (the effect).

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.285  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.284    one week ago

Does this passage connote homosexual acts as moral or immoral?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.286  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.283    one week ago

Nothing I have written has anything to do with you.   I  made no comment about your homosexuality (other than acknowledging it) or about homosexuality in general.   It is fascinating watching you fabricate allegations from thin air rather than deal with the fact that this passage contradicts your views.   Cognitive dissonance?

I quoted scripture that shows the NT describing homosexual acts as shameful.   Now if you find the passage to be too difficult to understand or dismiss it as too vague to be taken literally that is your choice.   This never was about you (obvious from my comments), it was about providing an example where the New Testament gets morality wrong.

What it boils down to is homosexuals in the Church have to deal with what they have in the writings and at the same time be true to themselves. Now, homosexuals have learned various 'coping' mechanisms - including living by faith alone and trusting God will understand their heart at the appropriate time of their end. 

This reads as though you recognize the passage deems homosexual acts to be immoral and that you 'cope' with it.    Interesting.   While your personal life has nothing whatsoever to do with my comment,  it is interesting to observe how words in a book can shape an individual's entire lifestyle.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.287  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.285    one week ago
Does this passage connote homosexual acts as moral or immoral?

The passage is saying that allowing ones' behavior to be controlled by sexual desire is immoral.

Romans were bisexual; sex was something to do at parties.  The passage doesn't say anything about homosexuality as a sexual identity.  Paul isn't really saying that homosexuality is immoral.  Roman's weren't engaging in same gender sex because of sexual orientation or identity; they were engaging in same gender sex and opposite gender sex only to satisfy their own lust.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.288  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.287    one week ago
The passage is saying that allowing ones' behavior to be controlled by sexual desire is immoral.

Amazing.  

 
 
 
CB
1.1.289  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.286    one week ago
This reads as though you recognize the passage deems homosexual acts to be immoral and that you ' cope ' with it.    Interesting. 

My personal life is 'in play' because (1) This all stems from me asking Nerm a question about what Nerm perceived as immorality in the New Testament - and you inserted yourself to speak about homosexuality (as you have done with me 'historically.'). Sometimes, I don't want to have the same old drawn out (as now) discussion with you about same-sex relations. Let me 'hear' and possibly learn something from someone else. Furthermore, lately, you have acted like I speak an alien 'dialect' and you can not glimpse my points anyway. Resulting in my being glad you and I were not interacting for a 'moment.'

Coping. As I explained to you @ 1.1.246 and @ 1.1.262 Paul wrote many things about homosexuality from his/Spiritual/God perspective - that does not mean that every homosexual can oblige Paul's writings in theory or practice. But, Romans 1:26— has nothing to do with you for you have zero intend to live out anything expressed in the Bible. So to 'pick' at homosexuality as immoral when speaking to a homosexual speaks (unspoken) volumes . What am I supposed to think, TiG?

Of all the activities the Bible labels immoral (lying, stealing, adultery, anger, lust, fornication, murder, drunkenness, covetousness, etceteras - things anybody can face an issue of life) you push homosexuality to the homosexual and sit back to see what falls out? What do you expect? That I would join you in condemning Paul/Spirituality/God because you think it reasonable?

Christian faith is reasoned from inside the pages of the Bible—not from standing outside criticizing and pointing.

So yes, in order to have faith in God and get through the difficulty of how homosexuality is not fully elaborated on in the New Testament, and still have a long life, the "faithful " homosexuals, plural , have to learn to COPE with difficulties in the Bible which can not be 'chiseled' off the pages.

It has little to nothing to which an OUTSIDER should bother his or her mind over. Just go on to something else. Your existence may not be affected in any way by any homosexual's faith in God.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.290  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.288    one week ago
Amazing.

Paul is saying that secularism causes homosexual behavior.  Isn't that consistent with Catholic belief?

You are quoting the first Pope.  As I have already pointed out, the moral underpinnings of the first Pope's writings are tenuous, at best.  Is there any humanity in the Catholic Church's enforcement of God's law?

Does the Catholic Church accept that humans possess free will?  Does the Catholic Church accept that morality is objective?  Does the Catholic Church accept that legal authority and moral authority are separate and should remain separate?  Does the Catholic Church accept that being Christian is a choice?

Catholics do, indeed, believe that homosexuality is immoral.  But I'm not Catholic and I'm not going to kiss the Pope's ring or backside.  You can argue Catholic belief as much as you wish.  I'm going to continue to point out the errors you are making.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.291  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.289    one week ago

False.   You did this all on your own.   I provided scripture with a prime example of the New Testament getting morality wrong; directly responding to your challenge.   I chose that passage because I knew that you, being homosexual, would almost certainly agree that homosexuality is not immoral.   I offered the passage as a quote and provided no interpretation of my own.

From there you flamed out with all sorts of emotionally-charged allegations.    Your problem to deal with.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.292  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.291    one week ago

I agree to disagree. And, I am done discussing it with you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.293  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.292    one week ago

Good.  Best to deal with your personal issues privately.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.294  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.293    one week ago

And I am not interested in your God-logic issues. Best deal with them privately too.

Good luck with that! /s

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.295  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @1.1.289    one week ago
So yes, in order to have faith in God and get through the difficulty of how homosexuality is not fully elaborated on in the New Testament, and still have a long life, the "faithful " homosexuals, plural , have to learn to COPE with difficulties in the Bible which can not be 'chiseled' off the pages.

Why do you need faith in God?  As a Christian its necessary to have faith in Christ.  Jesus fulfilled God's laws and prophecies; it isn't necessary to blindly obey God any longer and Jesus removed the threat of God's punishment.

Instead of arguing about God's law, it might be wise to explain how any sexual orientation can conform to the selfless morality taught by Jesus.

God isn't going to carry us piggyback any longer.  God isn't a justification or an excuse.  To paraphrase Jesus using the words of Morpheus, "there is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path".  Jesus only placed one condition on salvation and I believe you know what it is.