|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 6, 2006 15:06:34 GMT -5
Ok good. At least you are being consistent in your logic. Logicly following your principle, no society has ever been morally wrong. Therefore the crusades, nazism, canibalism, and slavery have not MERELY been ok, but they have actually been MORALLY right.
Suppose a man is in one society where rape is morally wrong. You would say that rape is morally wrong for him. But if the same man travels to another society where rape is a "males right". For the same man, in a different society, rape then becomes the moral thing to do. Even if it's your wife? You may personally disagree with the morality of the society, but never the less the morality is still right?
You are being consistent in your logic but I'm not so sure you are being consistent in your practice.
But according to your previous principle, America and it's allies had no right to say that germany and her allies were wrong.
Given your principle, nobody should have ever decided that Nazi Germany was wrong and nobody should have ever determined to fight against them.
Is this the ideal world you are proposing here?
Would you say that it's wrong to tell another culture that it's wrong? If so, are you not practicing the very practice you are trying to forbid?
I do not propose a fine for murder. Abortion should be illegal and those who have abortions and those who give abortions should be charged with murder and face 25-life imprisonment. Given the situation, maybe a women has had dozens of abortions, they should impart capital punishment.
If our society decided to do that, then that is what is morally right and you could not call it "ridiculous", given your principle, you would have to call it morality.
What are you appealing to here? Are you appealing to some sort of morality that every "sane person" has, that we should for some reason "care" for the well being of another person? Are you appealing to some sort of morality that says "love thy neighbor?" What makes you say that anyone should care about the well being of anyone? That is not an official law in our society.
Though I do not want any women to get any infectious disease, what if I, for the sole sake of arguement, I said that it's morally good for the society if these women get infectious diseases. How can you say that's wrong?
If morality is not an abstract entity (apart from society but not apart from God) by which standard do you want me to use to judge if Christian laws have "improved" the culture? If society determines the morality, I would have to say that every law that there has ever been in any society has "improved" the culture.
You want me to show you how the percentages of murders have decreased on account of Christianity. You are taking for granted that murder is morally wrong and every God created creature knows this. What if the percentages show that murderers have increased?
Suppose society passes a law that every law abiding citizen needs to murder every homosexual and every abortionist in the society. (God forbid that this ever happen!). But following your logic, it would be the moral thing to do. So how are you now trying to compare Christian laws with some sort of morality that is abstract from laws by asking for me to show you a "decrease"?
What if society tries to pass laws that say, "thou shalt murder"? Murder then becomes the moral thing to do, given your presupposed principle.
Dusty, you are a perfect examine of what John Locke said, "The mad man reasons rightly, but from wrong presuppositions."
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 6, 2006 22:49:51 GMT -5
so much here. so little to reply on. jesse, i cannot tell you that you are wrong. i cannot forbid anyone from doing anything, because they will do as they want to do. this is my chief point, and not a principle. i do believe certain things are unwarranted, and although i disagree with the actions of the crusades, nazi germany AND abortion i cannot prohibit them, because people need to make their own individual choices in life.
let me go back one more time and reinforce what i said about morals and society:
morality is subjected to society. yes, i understand the implications of this, and yes i agree that no society was ever morally wrong on anything.
this means that i believe morality is relative, jesse. this does not mean that i agree with everyone's actions. ok, nazi germany one more time...
america went to war against germany because we agreed, as a society, that they were wrong. in other words, it was voted upon by our political superiors, our president, and most americans that what they were doing was amoral. this means that we took a subjective stance on morality, because the society first agreed on it. then, we attacked. (unlike president bush who attacked preemptively, without the approval of congress or half of the u.s. citizens, and look where his 'morals' got us....in a nasty pickle)
germany believed she was right, and we believed we were right.
important: the reason why i cannot, without a shadow of a doubt, say that society is subjected to morality is because not all people abide by said morals. society subjected to morality requires one hundred percent participation, while morality subjected to society only requires that there is punishment for actions, usually determined by morals. however, as america proves every day in murder rates...there is not one hundred percent 'moral' participation of its people.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 6, 2006 23:25:53 GMT -5
Why?
Are all Americans subjected to the American laws? Do all Americans keep American laws? All Americans are subjected to the authority of the American laws, even though some Americans choose to break that law. It doesn't mean they are not under the authority of the law, it simply means they choose to disobey the authority. And if they are caught they suffer the consequences.
All of society is subjected to God's morality. Though many choose to rebel against God's morality (God's Law), they are still under His rule and will end up suffering the consequences of their disobedience.
God's Law transcends man's law. Though man's law is determined by men, God's Law is the ultimate Law of all.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 7, 2006 3:48:16 GMT -5
god's law transcends the american law IFF you are a christian. this is why it is relative. however, i have no problem with you serving god and mankind with your pretentious 'righteousness'. in fact, get me a bagel...
the only problem i have is this duty to 'relclaim' america for god, and the ideology promoting theocracy. i have no problem with christians, muslims, or any person. let me live my life, and as long as no one hurts me or my wife, or anyone i love, and does not interfere with my freedoms... i will leave you alone. this is the tenets of my beliefs. where do they come from? religion, culture, and anything i see fit. i choose my morals...some from christianity, others elsewhere.
i agree with you in one respect. man's law is man's law. god's law is god's law. i will live by man's law because i am a man. you will live by both because you are a christian man.
pretty darn simple, just don't expect me to abide by god's universal laws unless i wake up tomorrow with two hundred bricks of gold in my bedroom. hell, i might even tithe for that much money. heh.
p.s. who knows what will affect me in my life. however, all i seek to make you understand is that the decision to follow christ is mine. you cannot point at me from atop a soap box, change my mind, and say that i had free choice in the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 8, 2006 16:38:07 GMT -5
If morality then is determined by the society. Where does the society get it's authority to do this?
Does the society as a whole get it's authority from the individuals?
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 9, 2006 7:54:30 GMT -5
the society adheres to a melting pot of individual ideas, beliefs, etc.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on May 9, 2006 13:15:51 GMT -5
My church pulled their reservations for this years BattleCry. Last year it was Aquire the Fire. Now i know why they pulled out, no ones wants to fight sin.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 9, 2006 14:21:08 GMT -5
HSTN2983, do you believe it would have been morally consistent if your mother would have slaughtered YOU in the womb? HSTN2983, would it morally consistent to say that it's ok if I believe you're a product of incest? Is it morally acceptable to fornicate with your brother or sister? Are your parents related? Would you shout it from the rooftops if they were? I'm just curious to know if your own stated morality would be "morally acceptable" to you in the above scenarios
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 10, 2006 16:04:51 GMT -5
If the society makes morality, and it gets it's moral authority from the individual, then is not the individual also in possession of this moral authority?
If the individual does not have this moral authority, then how can it give moral authority to the society at large?
But if the individual does have this moral authority, then could you also say along with "society as a whole has never been morally wrong" that the "individual has also never been morally wrong"??
If society get's its moral authority from the individual, then the individual must also have the same moral authority, in which can no individual has ever been morally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 10, 2006 21:14:25 GMT -5
biblethumper, what my mother chose to do to me was her choice. however, i think it ignorant of you to pull an argument like that out of your hat because i am not an infant...so you are a little late. you can believe what you want about me, and what people do behind closed walls is not my problem. i do not commit incest because i am not attracted to my sister, not because i think its wrong. i cannot answer IFF questions, and i try not to form them myself so...grow up.
jesse, define circular argumentation. oi.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 11, 2006 22:24:22 GMT -5
I asked my question first. Then we can deal with circular reasoning.
If the society gets it's authority to make morality from the individual, then does the individual have this authority, not only to give, but also to use himself to make morality?
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on May 13, 2006 15:11:57 GMT -5
a quote from a great song:
We're all looking for an answer Some colossal cosmic cause But who the beep are you To turn your views into my laws? It's just believers in the bible That would have abortion banned Anti-choice agnostics? I could count'em on one hand And as for killing babies I have but one retort If someone raped your daughter George You'd beg her to abort
The point is, we should have the right to abort if we so choose. Choice is everything Jesse. If you choose not to abort, that's your problem. The rest of us sinful bastards will gladly take the right. Do not force your views into laws. That will be the fall of democracy; the merging of church and state. Keep it seperate, as the Founding Fathers have done. (No america was not founded on Christianity. If you want to argue this with me, start another thread.)
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 16, 2006 4:51:35 GMT -5
Society doesn't dictate what is morally right and wrong, it only scews the meter. The more we can justify our sin to make us comfortable, the more scewed the meter gets and farther away we get from the absolute moral law.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 16, 2006 4:58:20 GMT -5
atheistbibleburner: You said before that you and your wife are against abortion seeing that it is murder. You also said others should have the right to make the choice for themselves if they want to kill their unborn baby.
My question: Do you think its ok to kill your child (infant or toddler age, for example)? Do you feel others should have the right to kill their child though?
If not, what's the difference between killing a born child and an unborn if they are both lives? And wouldn't this be an abolute moral law? (thou shalt not kill)
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 16, 2006 12:52:57 GMT -5
there are no absolutes, except that there are no absolutes.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 16, 2006 12:54:46 GMT -5
jesse, i answered your question with a question. i cannot answer your question because you refuse to use reasoning. you use circular reasoning. you try to trap people with irrational questions that loop upon themselves. you also formulate questions that will only work to your favor. in other words, regardless of the answer, it makes you look right. ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 18, 2006 11:16:15 GMT -5
there are no absolutes, except that there are no absolutes. so killing someone else's kid or wife isn't absolutely wrong? If I consider it ok, then I should have the freedom to do it without concequence? There are absolutes, but its where we draw the line between what is absolute and relative. And the fact is, all I have to do is draw my line down lower and it justifies all my actions, making me feel like I'm a great guy, living well and pleasing whatever god I follow. GOD Himself is an absolute, the universe He created is an absolute with absolute laws (law of gravity, law of themodynamics, laws of physics, etc.) which includes moral law. We know there is right and wrong, we know justice is deserved for those who violate a law against us... but we loath to think that we deserve justice ourselves. But who deserves any justice if we can freely redraw the line of moral laws?
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 19, 2006 15:56:57 GMT -5
no, grant, what i mean is this:
you kill my wife in america. there is consequences for your action IFF you get caught. the consequences vary...jail, death penalty, or my revenge. hah.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 19, 2006 17:11:58 GMT -5
If there is no judgment day, ultimately evil wins. Every rapest who never got caught, every murderer who committed the "perfect crime", every criminal that has gotten off competely free has won.
What a wonderfully terrible world you live in.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 20, 2006 6:20:04 GMT -5
yes, but at least i don't need a nightlight on where i live...
|
|