Spider wrote:
The logical conclusion after reading Darwin's works is that we need to implement eugenics. The logical conclusion after reading the Bible is that I'm a bad person and need to love people more. The most radical Christians alive today are probably the Westboro Basptists and there are what...100 of them? All one giant family. And they simply hold up signs at funerals, cruel, but not violent. Christianity is a very non-violent religion. We have a less than stellar past, but the religion as it exists today values peace and brotherhood. Christianity has evolved as a philosophy and as a group of people. While there are still individual Christians who are violent, the movement is passive.


The non-violence of Christianity can be well seen in the history of the world. There are many dead who if they could speak would tell you of the horrors of your peaceful religion. Pagans who came before Christianity who were tortured and killed to convert, Muslims who were murdered throughout the Crusades, Innocents burned as witches, abortion clinic bombing, abortion docs killed, etc... the list does go on and on. Those are off the top of my head.

So own it, if you are going to use it. I don't want to hear about how this is the imperfections of man and not the religion because it is done in the name of the religion.

"Rape is always wrong" is a statement of absolute wrong. I'm really not sure I understand your question.

There is no "absolute morality", everyone has their own morality. There is absolute "right and wrong". Rape is always wrong. I cannot imagine an honest, sane person debating otherwise. Even in some improbable scenario and one considers rape the "right" choice to make, one must honestly admit that rape is wrong.

I'm completely ignoring the illogical arguments that if a society says rape is right, then it's right for that society. That is simply mob rule. Every organized religion of which I am aware and every major branch of philosophy accept some degree of moral absolutism. I'm sorry, but I don't feel the need to pretend that rape could be right (not wrong at all, but rather the right thing to do) in any society. Only someone who honestly believed that humans have no individual rights or dignity could believe such a horrific thing and I don't believe such a person exists. If you put someone who made that claim into a society that says he or she can be violated, murdered or enslaved and I believe you would find them demanding fair treatment in moments, ignoring all of their pontificating on how societies determine what is right or wrong.

You said it right, every religion you know accepts some absolute morality. Of course they do and of course so do you.

It doesn't make it fact because religions accept the ideal.

Nor if you do.

The facts are that societies make moral codes for themselves and that is what governs right and wrong. People sit around and discuss and determine what is right and what is wrong and through this process it becomes the status quo or becomes laws of the land.

And you still did not prove absolute morality except that you believe it. Your opinion of course.

1) The Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression against Christianity. 80% of the Christian / Jewish world was forcibly converted to Islam BEFORE the Crusades started. I'm sure some innocent Muslims were killed in the Crusades and that's unfortunate. But the Crusades were started in an effort of self defense against war-like invaders. You really should read some history on this, you will find that things were far different than you seem to believe.

2) It is wrong to blame someone for crimes committed by another person who fits into their demographic. It's so incredibly specious to suggest otherwise, that I must assume you were simply trying to offend. You didn't, sorry to disappoint.

Not true of the Crusades at all unless you read the edited version of Christianity and if you defend the religion you must defend the religion. The religion is responsible for all the wrong done in it's name. It was the reason it happened.

So go into denial if you so choose but do not bring up your peace loving religion and not expect to be called one the untruth of it because it is going to happen.

I cannot prove absolute morality, because no such thing exists.

The existence of moral absolutes is obvious to most people. You seemed to miss the fact that nearly every branch of philosophy accepts the existence of absolute right and wrong.



Noam Chomsky said...




We aren't getting anywhere, are we? You don't care how wrong you are on this, you won't admit that moral absolutes exist. I'm going to stop talking to you now, I find you to be unreasonable.

Prove it.





You are white, you are responsible for slavery. Defend yourself.

You are blonde, you are responsible for the holocaust. Defend yourself.

You are a woman, a woman broke my heart. Defend yourself.

I'm just teasing...you have to admit your position is laughable.

Okay, I'm done. I'm done talking to you. I'm not going to be rude about it, but I'll be ignoring almost everything you post, unless I see an ounce of reason or intellectual honesty in the post.

Not dismantled, that would be even a worse situation, especially in the modern era. I believe that our Founding fathers did a great job, but our government need many tweaks to be back where it is supposed to be. The best cure is for people to stop being apathetic about politics and educate themselves.

The idea of absolute morality actually supports Wicca and not Christianity.

Just look at the examples that are being used in this thread when asking what's absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

In ever case the examples are centered around a situation where someone is harmed. Such as rape, murder, stealing, etc.

So the Wiccan rede simply states, "Do as ye will, but harm none".

That seems to cover all aspects of absolute moratlity (or absolute right and wrong).

Where the gray areas come into play is when we ask moral questions where no one is harmed.

Like same-gender love? Is anyone being harmed in that case? No.

How about consentual polygamy? Is anyojne being harmed in that that case? No.

How about honoring your parents? That's one of the 10 commandments of Christianity!

What if the parents are drug abusers, or child molesters? Should they still be honored and obeyed? I think not. Especially if they are telling their children to do things that causing harm to others or to themselves.

Clearly if we want to talk about absolute morals we can only do so through the Wiccan Rede.

The commandments given in the Christian Bible are far from decent. The God in the Bible commands people to stone each other to death. The God in the Bible puts a price on women to be sold. The God of the Bible condones slavery. The God of the Bible condemns same-gender lovers to death.

Clearly the God of the Bible has no sense of decent morality at all.

Therefore if we're going to work from the point of view that morality is absolute we must turn to the Wiccans for heathly advice and guidance. Because only their rede makes any sense in that context.

We'd absolutely need to reject the Bible, Quran, and Torah as being utterly unreasonable.

It's that simple.

Any concept of absolute morality is a concept that actually denies the Abrahamic doctrines, because they clearly do not contain absolute moralities. They clearly contain bigotry and hatred toward people based on something as simple as what God they choose to worship. Clearly that alone would be a relative judgment.

So all this arguing for absolute morals is just giving support to the Wicca religion because it's the only one that has an absolute rede that is sound enough to follow. Harm none. It's extremly simple and to the point. It covers all scenarios where any absolute morality could be in question, and where morality is a matter of opinion is clearly doesn't cover.

So if morality (or sense of right and wrong) is an absolute, then we've just proven the Wicca is the only true religion. Because it's the only religion that has a rede that can cover that scenario.

James,

What you are talking about is subjective morality. The idea that it's okay to mistreat someone (your parents) if they mistreated you. Christians believe in moral absolutes. You can't lie to someone, just because they lied to you. You can't assault someone, just because they assaulted you.

Subjective morality shows that you are acting a certain way with an expectation of receiving the same treatment, not because you believe it to be absolutely right.

As I understand it, Wiccan believe in not hurting others under any circumstances. If that's true, then they are also supporters of moral absolutes. You do the right thing, because it's the right thing, not because you hope to others return in kind. If they believe in applying their moral subjectively, then they are not moral absolutists. Subjective morality is self-interested in that it expects "returns" on good deeds. Not that it's bad to expect others to treat you good, because you treat them good, but it's not realistic.

I hope this clears up your confusion on the subject.



James, you have said you studied the Bible for 40 years, but you don't know that Moses, not God, wrote the Mosaic laws? You don't know that those laws were given in punishment for the lawlessness of the Israelites? When you make claims like the above, I can't help but question your assertion that you were a practicing Christian.

False

This statement of mine, “right”, in my vocabulary, is simply a synonym for “most right” (which is also synonymous with “least wrong ” directly contradicts this statement of yours “you do not consider "rape" to be less wrong in the analogy”

So there is no self-contradition in what I sad, but there is a fabricated contradiction in what you said.

False. I do not agree with you.

Oh I could say it if I wanted to. But if I did say it, in this context, I would consider it to be a lie. So if you want to accuse me of refusing to lie, go right ahead.

Again, false, for two reasons
1) That is not what I said, so it is not true, and
2) Because of the contortions you had to go through to misrepresent it, it was not “clear” either.

Well since that is stated simply as a personal opinion, all I can say is that you are entitled to it, but I don’t agree with it.

Considering all the above, it appears that it is not me, but you, who are “playing semantic games”.

And I still stand by what I said.

Now if you misunderstood or misinterpreted what I said, I will give you the same opportunity to speak up now.

Not trying to be contrary here James, but I'd like to point something out...

The definition of "harm" itself is open to debate.

Whether "harm" is determined by the victim, the perpetrator, or someone (or ones) else, it still must necessarily be based on viewpoint, thus it must necessarily be subjective.

Now personally, I consider the Wiccan moral code to be one of the best around. But I don't think it can be considered "absolute".

JMHO

spider your bad manners and child like behavior are preceeded only by your BAD MANNERS AND CHILD LIKE BEHAVIOR. STICK TO THE TOPIC OR GO AWAY PLEASE

I'm in complete agreement with you Sky!

I never agreed that there exists any such thing as "absolute morality" or absolute right and wrong.

I simply pointed out the fact that when there appears to be any consensus at all that consensus is always based on the idea that it's wrong to harm another, and all the consensus is truly about is a a consensus of what constitutes harm in the particular situation under consideration.

So I'm with you 100%.

None the less, anytime there does appear to be consensus it's always a consensus that someone is being harmed.

Thus if we go by that then Wicca would have the best rede around.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm not agreeing with the premise that any absolute right or wrongs exist.



This is truly laughable Spider because it's crystal clear that even the clergy of this major Abrahamic religions can't come to a consensus on these sorts of things. So for you to suggest that your opinions are superior to mine is nothing short of arrogance on your part.

This is indeed the problem with these dogmatic religions, they are WIDE-OPEN to interpretations.

If we can't even agree on what the doctrines are even saying then how could we ever come to a consensus on what is or isn't the word of God.

Besides, if what you say is true then Jesus would have clearly denounced the stoning of sinners as not having been a directive of God.

He could not do that because it was indeed understood to be a directive of God. So instead of denouncing it he tried to weasel his way out of it by using the trick of demanding that only those without sin cast the first stone.

So as far as I'm concerned your interpretation is clearly wrong because if you were correct then Jesus just would have simply denounced the stoning of sinners altogether as not having been a directive from God.

But that's not what he did.

So, from my point of view, you are the one who is 'confused'.

And this also drives home the point that the Biblical doctrine is totally useless because of these utterly open-ened interpretations that cannot be nailed down with any kind of certainty.

We could argue about this until we are blue in the face and never resolve it. In fact, the most scholarly clergy have been doing so for eons and haven't come to a consensus yet.

If the Abrahamic doctrines where clear there wouldn't be so many diverse religions surrounding them.

As long as Judsism, Islam, Catholicism, and the myriad of diverse opinions of the protesting Protestants continues, the only thing that we can know with absolute certainty is that the whole dogmatic religion is confused.

For you to think that your interpretations reign supreme is nothing short of personal arrogance. Why should you have the correct interpertation whilst everyone else is wrong?

According to the gospels even Jesus himself didn't denounce that directive as not being from God. So you're up against the very man whom you believe speaks for God. I'd say that you're in a real pickle on that one.

Sir, I am responding to posts created by others. If you wish to chastise me for being off topic, I think it would be appropriate to also chastise the others who are off topic.

If you are referring to something else I've done as "bad manners and child like behavior", then I am at a loss for what you are talking about.

Regardless, threads will evolve and change as they grow. You should at least take some pleasure in knowing that your topic has spawned a debate and either join in or sit back and read it.

Jason, I apologize for not addressing your original comments in the OP of your thread.

You originally wrote:


I agree with your assessment here.

Right and wrong is a matter of personal interpretation and judgment. I also agree that if Bin Laden truly believed that Americans are heathen infidels who worship mammon and are the enemies of God then he very well may have been 'justified' in his own mind from a religious point of view. If he truly believed that he was acting in a manner that was condoned by his God then he was doing, what he believe to be, the 'righteous thing'.

It would be no different from the men in the Bible who murdered their enemies in the name of their God.

It would be no different from the men who tortured midwives and burned countless innocent women thoughout Europe in the name of Jesus Christ. They believed they were doing the right thing too.

Right and wrong is necessarily a subjective thing.

I'm in total agreement with you.

James,

The Mosaic law is broken down into three parts. The first ten are called the 10 commandments, they are the moral laws that were given to Moses on Mount Sinai. The remaining 603 laws were written down on scrolls by Moses as civil or ceremonial laws. The 10 commandments are the foundation of the remaining 603 laws. But the commandments include no punishments, as they are moral laws that apply to the believers morality. The civil laws include punishments. While those commandments were God inspired, they don't apply to Christians. The reason is that they were given as civil laws to Israel. Christianity isn't a nation, it's only a religion, so it doesn't need civil laws. The temple is no longer a building, it's inside every Christian, so we don't need to follow the ceremonial laws.

Tell me, what did your branch of Christianity teach on this subject?

Just a question on the following.
I wasn’t aware that James ever “asserted that he was a practicing Christian”.

If he did, I must admit to never having seen it and being completely wrong in my understanding of his religious practices.

And if he did not, where did such an assumption come from?

James has said that many times in the past. You would have to go back 8+ months to find it, but it's there.

Well personally, I don't assume the because he said it 8+ months ago, that it is still true today.

But in any case, I would prefer to hear him speak for himself.