Gimme That Old Time Religion

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Verto
Many of the punishments and consequences, etc, some of you are referring to is the Law of Moses, which if I remember correctly ended with the first coming of Jesus.

The Bible has contradictory verses on that issue.

There is no single "Christian" resolution of the contradiction. The theonomist interpretation is that the ceremonial laws are no longer in effect: we no longer have to sacrifice goats, eat kosher foods and get our dicks mutilated, but we still have to kill cursing kids, because that is the law "till heaven and earth pass".

Edit: ...hey, what happened to the censor? I can threaten to mutilate people's dicks now?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'm not trying to demonize anything. The diplomat asserted the gentleman in the article weren't true Christians. I want to know why that is, and how the heck he is qualified to make such an assertion. I'm sure those men would likely think he or you isn't a true Christian either, so what's the definition, and who can determine it?

I am merely expressing my opinion that his actions are not christian because I don't believe that christians should do what he did. I am saying that he was not behaving like a true christian when he whipped that little kid to the point of near death!

[The diplomat]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Boris... exactly... nice evasion, but the question needs to be answered.

So something is moral because lots of people do it! Wow, what incredible moral logical! I am speechless.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So you are saying that killing kids for cursing is moral?

I am merely explaining what that verse was saying: that a child who wants their parents dead, deserves to die.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And actually, YES, I am saying something is moral because lots of people do it.

I know that it what you are saying. And, I am saying that your point is completely nonsensical. If people were to commit more murders, would we consider murder moral? if people committed so many murders that society decided to legalize it, would murder be moral? Well, it would become legal, but that would not make it moral. We can make an action legal, but not moral. That is why I am saying that your point makes no sense. If you were right, then if more people were thieves, then stealing would become moral. I hope you can see how absurd that it. Stealing would become legal, but mot moral. If we declared stealing legal, would it become moral? Don't you see how absurd your point is? You are saying that society were to legalize stealing, then that act alone suddenly makes stealing moral. That is absurd!

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The whole basis for morality is what people think is right and wrong. If a lot of people are doing something openly that means they think it is right. Therefore society treats that action as moral. Morals are more a democracy than you think.

NO NO NO!!!! Morality is not based on what people think. That is what I am trying to say. Morality is inherently right or wrong. To go back to my example: if a society declared stealing or murder moral and everyone did it, that would not make those things moral. Stealing and murder are wrong no matter what people say, think or do.

[JohnIII]

But if there was a society with no concept of property, there would be no need for laws against stealing. Would this be immoral?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by JohnIII
But if there was a society with no concept of property, there would be no need for laws against stealing. Would this be immoral?

if they have no concept of property and share everything in a communal system, there is nothing wrong with sharing. But there is a huge difference between sharing a stealing.

Using your example, if a person refused to share, and the other person decides to simply take it from them, that person did something wrong. They shoud not have taken the object from the other person who did not want to give it to them. Just because the society has not codified property and such in laws, taking something that another does not want to give you, would still be wrong!

[Dr Strangelove]

In the day that the passage in question was written "cursing" meant exactly that - putting a magic spell ( a la Harry Potter et al. ) on someone. Find for me a child who has turned his parents into toads and I will suggest to you that you execute the young hellion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

diplomat, you are incorrect. There is no such thing as absolute morality. There is no 'true' right or wrong. It simply depends on the society in which one is a part of. If a society declared stealing and murder to be legal, and people supported it, then DAMN STRAIGHT it would be moral in that society.

Take a more real life example: The Death Penalty. In the United States, most people are for the the DP and it is legal. In Europe, most people are against the DP, and it is illegal. In the US, the DP is considered to be moral. In Europe it is considered immoral and barbaric. So, who is right? BOTH are! It simply depends on which society you are a part of and the moral code of that society.

All morals are relative. Absolute morality does not exist. The idea that having more people do something AND then it becomes moral is not absurd at all. It happens. To assert that there is one universal morality is absurdity.

Another example: Drug War. Right now it is illegal to sell and use drugs. Most people agree. Hence, it is immoral to use them. However, if the laws were changed and most people supported legalizing, say, pot. Then using pot would not be immoral. It would be something that is consistant with the society's morality.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
diplomat, you are incorrect. There is no such thing as absolute morality. There is no 'true' right or wrong. It simply depends on the society in which one is a part of. If a society declared stealing and murder to be legal, and people supported it, then DAMN STRAIGHT it would be moral in that society.

Take a more real life example: The Death Penalty. In the United States, most people are for the the DP and it is legal. In Europe, most people are against the DP, and it is illegal. In the US, the DP is considered to be moral. In Europe it is considered immoral and barbaric. So, who is right? BOTH are! It simply depends on which society you are a part of and the moral code of that society.

All morals are relative. Absolute morality does not exist. The idea that having more people do something AND then it becomes moral is not absurd at all. It happens. To assert that there is one universal morality is absurdity.

Another example: Drug War. Right now it is illegal to sell and use drugs. Most people agree. Hence, it is immoral to use them. However, if the laws were changed and most people supported legalizing, say, pot. Then using pot would not be immoral. It would be something that is consistant with the society's morality.

You are talking about perception. I agree with you that certain things will be perceived as moral or immoral depending on certain things. Of course, societies change their morality. People change their views on what is legal or illegal, what is moral or not.

But would a society be doing the right thing if they legalized theft, or murder? You are supposing that whatever a country or society decides is right or wrong, is automatically the right decision. Would a country be right if they legalized murder? Of course not, because murder is wrong. People could decide otherwise, and in that country murder would be consider moral. That is what you are saying: that in that country murder would be moral because they say so. But are they correct? NO! Murder is wrong.

Humans arbitrarily change our morality but that does not mean that we are right!

Why do we use a fixed set of calculus rules. or a fixed set of grammar rules? You have to have an absolute set of rules because otherwise math would be impossible, and if grammar had no set of rules, then it would be impossible to communicate with one another.

Why are the laws of physics and nature constant? if the laws of nature changed, life would be impossible.

So why is it impossible for morality to also be absolute? Morality governs social interaction. if the laws that govern physical interaction are constant, and the laws of mathematics and linguistics are constant, then would the laws that govern society be any different?

Just because we have morals laws that are relative, does not mean that we are right! it is logical to assume that if the laws of nature are fixed, that perhaps, there are laws of morality that are also fixed, and we need to find them.

Civilization has moved toward a more absolute moral law already, as we have understood basic truths about social interaction. For example, we understand that all humans regardless of their genes deserve respect and dignity. This truth is the foundation for many other laws. Right there we have approached a basic moral truth. So, we are already moving toward better understanding basic moral truths that are absolute.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But would a society be doing the right thing if they legalized theft, or murder?

It may be moral to them, sure.

Would a country be right if they legalized murder? Of course not, because murder is wrong.

To most societies, perhaps. But there are those that would disagree with you on what murder is. The term has taken a bad name, but what it actually is is under debate.

Why do we use a fixed set of calculus rules. or a fixed set of grammar rules? You have to have an absolute set of rules because otherwise math would be impossible, and if grammar had no set of rules, then it would be impossible to communicate with one another.

Why are the laws of physics and nature constant? if the laws of nature changed, life would be impossible.

So why is it impossible for morality to also be absolute? Morality governs social interaction. if the laws that govern physical interaction are constant, and the laws of mathematics and linguistics are constant, then would the laws that govern society be any different?

You can't be serious. There is NO common ground between mathamatical & scientific rules and social rules. This is seen by math and science having clear cut proven rules, but morality having no clear cut rules. You can't argue if 2+2=4 (except in interesting philosophical debates), but you can argue whether or not abortion is right or wrong.

Humans arbitrarily change our morality but that does not mean that we are right!

If we cannot decide who is right, then no one can. And don't dare bring God into this.

Just because we have morals laws that are relative, does not mean that we are right! it is logical to assume that if the laws of nature are fixed, that perhaps, there are laws of morality that are also fixed, and we need to find them.

Bull****. Laws of morality have nothing in common with laws of nature. Laws of nature are products of fact, the manifestations of atomic particles around us. Laws of morality are products of minds and metaphysical thought. Nature exists physically, morality does not. They do not compare.

Civilization has moved toward a more absolute moral law already, as we have understood basic truths about social interaction. For example, we understand that all humans regardless of their genes deserve respect and dignity. This truth is the foundation for many other laws. Right there we have approached a basic moral truth. So, we are already moving toward better understanding basic moral truths that are absolute.

No, what has happened is that one society's morality, in the age of globalization, is conquering other societies' morality. This is because the morality of every human deserving respect and dignity, which is a truely western idea (don't decieve yourself that ever other culture had this ideal), is the morality of the most powerful states. If China was the Superpower, I think you'd be singing a different tune.

The one final morality is simply one morality conquering the rest, in a morality war. However, all moralities CANNOT be conquered totally. Morals exist in humans' minds, and as long as people can think freely, humanity will come up with different ideas of morality.

In summation, morality IS perception, and nothing more.

[The diplomat]

Imran: So even though you don't like what that person did who almost whipped that poor boy to death, his morality is just as valid as yours, right? What he did is just fine, right? It is ok to whip an 11 year old boy hald to death for misbehaving? If you trully believe that morals are relative, then you think that "pastor" was moral in almost whipping that boy to death?

I guess you feel that there was nothing wrong in that Pakistani tribal council that sentenced a young woman to be gang raped because she broke a dating rule.

I guess it ok that certain Arabic countries practice female circumcision.

I guess you would tolerate slavery.

After all, just because it is not your moral code, does not make it wrong, right?

Moral relativism is repugnant because it does not stand up against evils. It does not uphold good. it would allow great crimes, great suffering, and great atrocities like the Holocaust even, under some guise that we do not have any right to judge others!

Without a set of morals, you end up having no morals at all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't like any of those things. My morality doesn't like it. That doesn't mean my morality is the best one out there. I think all your examples are morally wrong, but that is only my view. Certain people might say, well female circumcision is ok, because well, we practice male circumcision, so why should females be any different, etc.

Moral relativism is repugnant because it does not stand up against evils.

Without a set of morals, you end up having no morals at all.

The truth is usually repugnant or hard to take. Get used to it. Morals exist in the metaphysical sphere, which means they are subject to perception. No one can REALLY say their morals are right, if you look at it objectively. All they can do is say their morals are better for the situation at hand and thus push them. Of course that doesn't mean the guy next to you doesn't have some better morals than you.

But it doesn't change the fact that all morals are relative. HELL, look at Winston's thread on morals for evidence on that.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
I am merely expressing my opinion that his actions are not christian because I don't believe that christians should do what he did. I am saying that he was not behaving like a true christian when he whipped that little kid to the point of near death!

Unless, of course, the kid had cursed his parents, in which case it would be okay to kill him, right?

You're still dodging the question...

[Straybow]

Eurowimps.

[devilmunchkin]

oh great..this is what i have to look forward to when i re-enter the baptist capital of the world..Waco......arg!

[Tolls]

I'm like a moth to a flame...

"But would a society be doing the right thing if they legalized...murder?"

Society already does this, in the form of warfare. I believe the Quakers (someone might have to confirm this for me) would view that as murder, but society as whole accepts it (in general).