Children are little ****bags who should be used for baynet practice.

[loinburger]

Loin, the only reason that Christ's sermon on the mount is correct, is if he's God. Otherwise Lex Talionis is how the world ought to be. Unless you accept Christ as God, then it makes no sense to adopt his position on turn the other cheek.

"The only reason I'm (some semblance of) good is because God told me to be good." -Ben Kenobi

So what's the first atrocity you'd have committed had you lived prior to the Sermon on the Mount?

FYI, if you read anybody besides CS "Mr. Logical Fallacy" Lewis you'd discover the many independent justifications for the Golden Rule other than "God says so."

[loinburger]

His authority to change Lex Talionis is because he is God. That's why he says, "YHWH, said this to you, but I say this to you."

So the only reason Christ can contradict God is because he is God - this is of course leaving aside a. the unlikelihood of God's existence in the first place and b. more importantly, the immorality of following God's orders prior to Christ contradicting them.

And to refrain from divorce, lots of other things. Everything in that sermon on the mount, not just the one statement that you happen to agree with. Christianity doesn't work that way, you have to take the whole package.

Things like the Golden Rule can be independently verified as being ethical; things like refraining from divorce cannot.

Truth hurts.

[Ben Kenobi]

So what's the first atrocity you'd have committed had you lived prior to the Sermon on the Mount?

Uh, wouldn't this be the same as the sins I committed prior to becoming a Christian?

FYI, if you read anybody besides CS "Mr. Logical Fallacy" Lewis you'd discover the many independent justifications for the Golden Rule other than "God says so."

Such as?

[Ben Kenobi]

So the only reason Christ can contradict God is because he is God

The only reason Christ's argument is valid is if he is God. You can't take what he said about turning the other cheek, and ignore the first part of the statement where he says, "I am God".

Things like the Golden Rule can be independently verified as being ethical; things like refraining from divorce cannot.

How would one independently verify the Golden Rule?

[loinburger]

Uh, wouldn't this be the same as the sins I committed prior to becoming a Christian?

I suppose so - are you saying that you're only "ethical" because you're Chrsitian? Were you a mass-murderer back when you were a liberal?

Such as?

I find Discourse Ethics to be the most consistent and overarching, though there are plenty of alternatives. Read a book (NOT CS Lewis for crying out loud), or read what people have posted here in the past - I find it difficult to believe that you have never read a post about non-arbitrary justifications for the Golden Rule.

[loinburger]

You can't take what he said about turning the other cheek, and ignore the first part of the statement where he says, "I am God".

Sure you can - the gospels were written by people who weren't at the sermon, so it's likely that quite a bit of creative license was taken.

[Ben Kenobi]

I suppose so - are you saying that you're only "ethical" because you're Chrsitian? Were you a mass-murderer back when you were a liberal?

I'm saying that there are sins I committed back then that I haven't committed since, yes.

I am saying that what I believe to be ethical is different now, but that some things have not changed. Fr'nstance, divorce. My aunt divorced my uncle, and remarried, and got divorced again. So I had some experience with her unhappiness with her situation.

I find Discourse Ethics to be the most consistent and overarching, though there are plenty of alternatives. Read a book (NOT CS Lewis for crying out loud), or read what people have posted here in the past - I find it difficult to believe that you have never read a post about non-arbitrary justifications for the Golden Rule.

Considering as I've taken courses on normative and metaethics at university, I'm familiar with the counter arguments. CS Lewis even argues your theory, in the Abolition of Man, that some things are part of the Tao as he calls it, (Golden Rule), because we see many diverse cultures practice this. He also argues that divorce is not, and that the Christian concept of divorce is not universal in the same sense, because it requires divine revelation.

Essentially the methods all revolve around anthropology and trying to create a bin of what is normative ethics, based on what cultures do or do not do. I don't think it's based on a shred of empirical method.

I'm much more of the understanding that ethics are not material objects, that they are forms, and that we have certain understanding of these forms despite not having any empirical means to confirm them. Even if we did not know of them, we still have some knowledge of them. I believe that the whole package of what Christ teaches stands or falls together, and that this includes divorce and remarriage. So I disagree with CS Lewis on this and agree with Chesterton.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sure you can - the gospels were written by people who weren't at the sermon, so it's likely that quite a bit of creative license was taken.

Then, if your enemy takes your cloak, hand him your tunic also is creative license.

[loinburger]

I'm saying that there are sins I committed back then that I haven't committed since, yes.

What prevented you from committing rape, murder, grand larceny, etc? You weren't a practicing Christian, so what was there to prevent you? Was it just fear of the law, i.e. did you desire to commit rape, murder, and grand larceny but were afraid of being caught?

Essentially the methods all revolve around anthropology and trying to create a bin of what is normative ethics, based on what cultures do or do not do. I don't think it's based on a shred of empirical method.

Discourse ethics is deontological, not anthropological. What flaws did you find in it?

I believe that the whole package of what Christ teaches stands or falls together, and that this includes divorce and remarriage.

In other words, if divorce is permitted then so are rape, murder, and grand larceny? You don't see any differences in the type/kind/scope of these sins?

[loinburger]

Then, if your enemy takes your cloak, hand him your tunic also is creative license.

Could be. If there's no independent verification of its ethical value then it might have been inserted by the scribe, or it might have been applicable in Christ's time while no longer being applicable today. Command "ethics" are nothing but possibly unsound bits of advice.

[Ben Kenobi]

What prevented you from committing rape, murder, grand larceny, etc? You weren't a practicing Christian, so what was there to prevent you? Was it just fear of the law, i.e. did you desire to commit rape, murder, and grand larceny but were afraid of being caught?

I'm not a command ethicist. I believe that Ethics and the nature of God are one and the same thing. I believe that God makes us so that we have understanding of his laws and his rules. The sins I did commit I knew were wrong, but I committed them because again, I was tempted and sinned, not because I didn't know they were wrong.

Discourse ethics is deontological, not anthropological. What flaws did you find in it?

Habermas?

Same as with Kant, the universe isn't purely rational. Universe is beyond reason, in that reason can only take you so far. Kierkegaard talks about this quite a bit. That's the biggest problem with deontological ethical systems.

In other words, if divorce is permitted then so are rape, murder, and grand larceny? You don't see any differences in the type/kind/scope of these sins?

I'm saying that if divorce is permitted then there is no rationale to prevent or persecute rape, murder and grand larceny. You can argue that all of these have negative effects on society, but so does divorce. If you're arguing scales and harms, how does one come up with an empirical system to gage this? Utilitarianism doesn't work because no one agrees on how harms should be ranked, and nor can they.

Essentially, permitting divorce, says that it's ok to hurt other people deliberately if you feel that it would be beneficial to you.

Edit, btw, Kant's stronger than Habermas, because he argues for the existance of a transcendental morality which is applicable everywhere and at all times. Habermas is more situational ethics at least from how I understand him.

[loinburger]

I'm saying that if divorce is permitted then there is no rationale to prevent or persecute rape, murder and grand larceny.

Welp. There is no need for me to continue this discussion then.

[giblets]

I'm saying that if divorce is permitted then there is no rationale to prevent or persecute rape, murder and grand larceny. You can argue that all of these have negative effects on society, but so does divorce. If you're arguing scales and harms, how does one come up with an empirical system to gage this? Utilitarianism doesn't work because no one agrees on how harms should be ranked, and nor can they.

Essentially, permitting divorce, says that it's ok to hurt other people deliberately if you feel that it would be beneficial to you.

If you actually believed this crap, then you would also believe that it shouldn't be legal to fire your employees without their consent. Or quit your job without your employer's consent. You are pretty stupid.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you actually believed this crap, then you would also believe that it shouldn't be legal to fire your employees without their consent. Or quit your job without your employer's consent. You are pretty stupid.

I don't believe that marriage is the same as getting hired for a job. I believe that marriage fundamentally changes people for the rest of their life.

As for employment, and leaving, I think that employees have an obligation to fulfill their contract to the best of their ability and shouldn't quit until they have done so. Same with employers. But sometimes employers and employees don't have a choice as things outside of their control decide for them.

[giblets]

If it did why would they want to get divorced? I'm not buying it. Some marriages are failures and having the government try to force them to stay together is a stupid idea.