You Know, I Was Thinking...

CommunistWithAGun · August 2004

If humans, created in the image of god, are inherantly bad (orignial sin) god cannot exist because it proves itself wrong. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' />

Pepe_Muffassa · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 5 2004, 07:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If humans, created in the image of god, are inherantly bad (orignial sin) god cannot exist because it proves itself wrong. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
explain? - what is the "it" you are refering to? and what "proves" "it"?

Bogglesteinsky · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 5 2004, 01:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If humans, created in the image of god, are inherantly bad (orignial sin) god cannot exist because it proves itself wrong. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Humans were created in the image of God. They were prefect. They had a soul and they had free will. They chose to sin. The fact that humans chose to sin does nothing to disprove the existence of God. They are seperate entities.

Marine0I · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 6 2004, 12:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If humans, created in the image of god, are inherantly bad (orignial sin) god cannot exist because it proves itself wrong. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I may not have the time to address Thansals points in as much depth as I want to, but I can certainly deal with this oft repeated claim.

God created people in his image, and created them perfect, or so the story goes. However, he also insisted on giving them free will. True free will means giving them the option, if they would like, to go against what he told them, or sin.

Imagine your parents telling you you had complete free will - you could do whatever you like. So you grab the TV, raise it above your head and aim it out the nearest window. If they honestly, truely meant that you had free will, they'd have to let you throw it. If they stopped you, then free will is an illusion - "you can do whatever you like, unless I say you cant".

Adam and Eve took him up on it, ate the apple and committed original sin. Since then, everything in the world has been tainted by their evil. As punishment for their sin, God cursed the Earth, and we've been suffering ever since. I fail to see how that disproves the idea of God.

Thansal · August 2004

ok, this argument is gona go no where b/c it has just become (blatently) christianity vs every one else.

Bogglesteinsky · August 2004

These discussion never go anywhere, yet they keep coming up. I don't know about others, but I don't set out on them to convince everyone that I am right, I set out to test what I believe. Having people attacking what you say is the best way to get yourself thinking. It's not A vs B, its an obstacle course, a challenge, a learning experience, a 10,000 mile service for your faith and beliefs. There are no winners or losers.

If you want to stop posting, go right ahead, but don't spoil everyone else's day while you are at it.

Pepe_Muffassa · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thansal @ Aug 5 2004, 09:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ok, this argument is gona go no where b/c it has just become (blatently) christianity vs every one else.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Christianity usually sparks that reaction from people - it comes with the territory.

I think the reason these discussions go in this direction is because it is impossible to separate the faith from the faithful. It is a world view thing - our base ideas about life are different, so we will deffinatly come to different conclusions as to how the world should be.

Don't shirk the argument either. "Having people attacking what you say is the best way to get yourself thinking." And that is what this is all about - challenging each other to become better people.

Thansal · August 2004

Here is my problem with a discussion/argument when one, or more, of the sides is basing their argument off of Faith:

*argument*
"Thats wrong because God (the Omnipotent one) says so."

There is no discussion, there is only stating of beliefs.

I would be willing to argue biblical interpretations, however I don't know the bible that well. I gave you the website that shows both sides of the argument on homosexuality (though it favors the argument that homosexuality is perfectly ok)

This however is not an argument on the Bible, it is an argument on belief vs non belief.

A Jew and a Christian can go at it rather well, but that is because they are both using the same base. And 2 Christians can go at it even better, as they are both interpreting the exact same thing. However a Religious person and a non religious person have no common ground, no 'givens' (to use a math term).

It is kind of like this:

I am using these givens:
X = 1
Y= 3

with this I prove a long string of things (such as X + Y = 4 or, Y/X = 3)

You however are using these givens:
X = 0
Y = 5
So for you, X + Y = 5 and Y/X is nonexistent.

However, If you have 2 Christians arguing over the bible, they both have X = 0 and Y = 5, now they just argue over different combinations of the variables (and who forgot to carry the one).

Do you see what I am getting at?

ekent · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Aug 4 2004, 08:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Here is my point though - A person holding the position that says society dictates morals CAN NOT say that mass murder is wrong - and here is why. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I thought I made a pretty convincing argument that this wasn't the case, but maybe I didn't finish connecting the dots. Just so I don't have to restate myself, reread my prev. post if you're confused about terms.

Having demonstrated the My Friends principle, one can say that mass murder is wrong. Why? Because killing people doesn't earn you any friends.

Lets take a more complicated case. In our society, we've made the decision that ingesting some drugs is immoral. Well, it's safe to say the majority of people have made that decision, anyway. Why did they make that decision? You get ripped, you can't function normally. If you can't function normally, best case, the people who depend on you are let down, worse case, you make a bad decision that hurts people around you. Person A smokes no crack, is a nice guy and thus has a lot of friends. Person B smokes a lot of crack, sells his shoes for drugs, is nice, but he always lets people down. B may have friends, but they're probably crack-smokers and hence unreliable. Who would win in a fight? This is a lot more difficult to measure, but it's likely that the crack smoking person loses.

An individual can develop a complete and consistant morality this way, just by figuring out what is good and what isn't. His morality won't change because the circumstances surrounding him haven't. Do we have a morality derived from society? Yes. Is this an absolute morality? Also yes.

Look at the Iraq war for example. Saddam was a dictator, corrupt, greedy for power and unprincipled. America waged a war on him that was justified on false pretenses (weapons of mass destruction -- nonexistant). The world was "outraged," or were they? A lot of people demonstrated against the war but most governments did little or nothing to show their displeasure. That may be because they have no backbone, but I think it was because, secretly, they feel that although the war was waged based on <i>false</i> justification, that doesn't mean it was <i>unjustified</i>. America is a nice guy and thus has a lot of friends. Saddam was a ruthless tyrant and squandered any support he had (through use of chemical weapons on iranian soldiers, kurds, through the invasion of kuwait, to name only a little). Nice guys win wars.

(edited to remove irrelevance from the quote)

Thansal · August 2004

I kind of like Kent's method of argument, except that I can just come up with to many problems with it.

Mean people win wars also, Genghis Khan ring a bell? The Vikings? or how about Colonial American's and the Native Americans? Or any of the colonial powers back then?
The morals of the Colonial powers (we are big and civilized, you are small and 'savage', give us that, and become our slaves) were not morals that WE like, however, at the time those morals were prevalent through out Europe.

The simple explanation for what gives me the right to disagree with some one else's morals, is simply that morals are not absolute. And the thing that gives me the right to condemn morals is the backing of more people with morals similar to me.

Think about this.
My morals tell me that All people are created equal, that whites are no better then any other group of people.
However, there are people in the South that still hold to their morals that say that non whites are non humans, and thus subject to what ever they feel like doing to them.
I can condemn these people's morals because I have most of a country backing me up with laws (aka codified morals) that say that dragging a black man to death is just as bad as dragging a white man to death, and is then even worse because you simple did it because of the colour of his skin.

Enjoy <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Pepe_Muffassa · August 2004

ekent - OK, I'll go with your line of reasoning. Lets take the drug question.

This is what I am hearing from you (correct me if I am mis-reading)- Crack is bad because those who do crack have less "friends" and therefore less "power" - so the might of the non-crack people is stronger than the might of the crack people. Society strikes a balace, and morality is established. -> it is wrong to do crack.

Ok, now lets apply this principal to 2 other "drugs" - mariguana and cigaretts (nicotine). Cigaretts are commonly accepted all over as OK. The populous was duped into thinking they are "good for you" - generations got addicted. It was moraly "right" to smoke.
However, the "morality" of it is beginning to change. I live in the twin cities area, and slowly but surely more and more places are "outlawing" smoking in public. There is one portion of the cities that has completely banned smoking in public at all.

Mariguana - the doorway drug. It is touted as being "moraly wrong" for years - and yet now there is "medicinal mariguana" - moraly right. In fact, if the "public" had its way, mariguana would be OK. The wrongness of it has disappeared. More people have tried it than other drugs, more people have had "friends" who tried it. Heck Bill Clinton tried it "but didn't inhale".

So here we have morality derived from society YES - is it an absolute morality - NO.

So what is the "Christian" perspective. It says this "your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit - take care of it." Does that mean no smoking? - No. Does that mean no mariguana - No. No crack? - No. However, it means that if by doing those things I am not taking care of my body, then I shouldn't do them. I don't believe a person should be addicted to anything, to be subserviant to any form of drug - and that includes caffine (too much coffee or pop) - It isn't taking care of your body. Can I make a society based moral statement about that - NO. Can I make a God based moral statement about that - YES.

Thansal · August 2004

weeeeeeee

yay for horrible incorrect facts.

1) Cigarettes were NEVER touted as good for you, every one always knew they were bad for you (try asking a grown up)

2) Weed? Society still dosn't like it. Just because there is a medicinal use, does NOT mean that society likes it for non medicinal use (Morphine addiction is not considered acceptable, yet morphine is one of the most useful drugs we have). And most of the 'population' is not for the legalization of it, or else it would have been legalized.

3) You have to drink more then a 2 litter bottle a day to get addicted to caffeine via soda.

Why am I posting these? I like psycho pharmacology, and behavioral Psychology (aka, the study of how drugs effect us, and in this case the study of addiction), and don't like people misrepresenting anything.

However, I would also like to point out this:
You admit that society creates morals.
You still claim that there are such things as Absolute morals.

How about this one? Instead of absolute morals we name them Religious morals (or as you called them god given morals)?
After all, how can you know that your 'acts of god' are the correct ones?
It could be the Jews that are correct (after all, they worship the same god as you, though they follow very different rules), Or it could be that Christians WERE the chose people just as Jews were, however, god then changed his group again to the followers of Mohamed (aka, Islam), yet again, same god, different morals.

If there were absolute moral, they should some how effect every one, yet they don't. The Romans saw nothing wrong with homosexuality, same holds true for many great cultures. Many great cultures also saw nothing wrong with murder (cus after all, invading a country for the sake of taking it involves murder).
Again, I just can't see the concept of absolute morals with out the world being very different then it is.

Bogglesteinsky · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thansal @ Aug 6 2004, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> How about this one? Instead of absolute morals we name them Religious morals (or as you called them god given morals)?
After all, how can you know that your 'acts of god' are the correct ones?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
We don't. Your point? You don't know that your society has got the right idea either.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It could be the Jews that are correct (after all, they worship the same god as you, though they follow very different rules), Or it could be that Christians WERE the chose people just as Jews were, however, god then changed his group again to the followers of Mohamed (aka, Islam), yet again, same god, different morals.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Same God? So the Christian God that takes an interest in his creation and loves each of them as individuals is identical to Allah who couldn't care less? And the judgement of weighing up your good and bad deeds doesn't contradict Jesus' statement that the following law is not the way to salvation? I think not.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If there were absolute moral, they should some how effect every one, yet they don't. The Romans saw nothing wrong with homosexuality, same holds true for many great cultures. Many great cultures also saw nothing wrong with murder (cus after all, invading a country for the sake of taking it involves murder).
Again, I just can't see the concept of absolute morals with out the world being very different then it is.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Which is why your morals are relativist. You simply cannot imagine a world where all morals are absolute, because no such world exists.

Thansal · August 2004

*blink*

what?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Which is why your morals are relativist. You simply cannot imagine a world where all morals are absolute, because no such world exists.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I realy just don't under stand that line.

You are saying that there is no world with absolout morals?
Thats what I have been saying through out......

Oh, and as for Muslims? check out the research a little more. They don't believe that Jesus was the messiah, however, they are actualy a off shoot of christianity (much as christianity is an off shoot of the jews)
some quick info on it:
<a href='http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=401642' target='_blank'>http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=401642</a>
<a href='http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=393553' target='_blank'>http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=393553</a>

[ninjaEdit]
And no, I never claimed that my morals (or any one elses) are correct. But they are my morals, and thus I stand by them.

Pepe_Muffassa · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thansal @ Aug 6 2004, 09:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> weeeeeeee

yay for horrible incorrect facts.

1) Cigarettes were NEVER touted as good for you, every one always knew they were bad for you (try asking a grown up)

2) Weed? Society still dosn't like it. Just because there is a medicinal use, does NOT mean that society likes it for non medicinal use (Morphine addiction is not considered acceptable, yet morphine is one of the most useful drugs we have). And most of the 'population' is not for the legalization of it, or else it would have been legalized.

3) You have to drink more then a 2 litter bottle a day to get addicted to caffeine via soda.

Why am I posting these? I like psycho pharmacology, and behavioral Psychology (aka, the study of how drugs effect us, and in this case the study of addiction), and don't like people misrepresenting anything.

However, I would also like to point out this:
You admit that society creates morals.
You still claim that there are such things as Absolute morals.

How about this one? Instead of absolute morals we name them Religious morals (or as you called them god given morals)?
After all, how can you know that your 'acts of god' are the correct ones?
It could be the Jews that are correct (after all, they worship the same god as you, though they follow very different rules), Or it could be that Christians WERE the chose people just as Jews were, however, god then changed his group again to the followers of Mohamed (aka, Islam), yet again, same god, different morals.

If there were absolute moral, they should some how effect every one, yet they don't. The Romans saw nothing wrong with homosexuality, same holds true for many great cultures. Many great cultures also saw nothing wrong with murder (cus after all, invading a country for the sake of taking it involves murder).
Again, I just can't see the concept of absolute morals with out the world being very different then it is.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Actually Thansel, Cigaretts were touted as being good for you - by the companies that made them and by various doctors. That was one of the key reasons they were rationed in the military (smokers wont eat as much - more allert, etc.) The health hazzards of cigaretts are only known in the past 20-30 years (when all the life long smokers have started dying early).

As for weed - no, it is not legalized yet. Yes, it will be. The stigma of being a weed smoker has changed - it has become acceptable in many circles. Like I said, even our former president tried it. It won't be long before it is legalized, and the morality on it is already changing.

Concerning caffine - 2 X 20oz bottles a day will have me addicted in under a week. To break off it, massive headaches for a day or two.

It strikes me as interesting that you are so learned in the ways of psychology, yet don't pick up on these things. Instead you attempt to belittle my post - completely ignoring the trend that is there.

I would make the argument that there are absolute morals that affect everyone - most people choose to ignore them. Hence homosexuals, murders, liars and the like. Throw drug addicts and smokers into that list too, if you want.

Next time you choose to rebuttal one of my arguments, rebuttle it properly. In all of my "horrible incorrect facts" you never once touched on the morality shift (what the argument is actually about).

Here is the argument (to sum up). Society based morals are changing constanly and therefore are not a good ground to base your own personal morals on. God based morals are absolute immutables and therefore are suitable to build a moral life on. (e)kent was trying to argue that sociatal morals are absolute. My examples show that they are not.

Thansal · August 2004

I was not arguing aginst you disputing Kent's stuff (as I don't like his explenation, see my other post)

And as for the ciggerets being bad for you, well yes, ciggeret companies said that, but general poulation knew better (they didn't know HOW bad it was, but they knew they were not good).

Our last prez nearly lost the election when it came out that he had tried weed (but didn't inhale <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />) Yes, the younger generations see nothing wrong with weed. HOWEVER, most of society still doesn't see it to be a good thing, or even acceptable, heck smoking is on the decline in societies view (thus all of the recent smoking bans, you can actualy no longer smoke in a public building in NYC).

oh, and as for caffine addiciton?
can of coke (12 oz) has 34 mg of caffine.
soo, 68 mg in a 20 oz
136 mg per day

8 oz cup of coffe?
80-175 (depending on prep meathods and beans)
16 oz of coffe: 160 mg min, and up to 350 mg
Starbucks sells 3 sizes, 12, 16, and 20 oz
McD's does it in 12 and 16.
so the minimum you could have at a take out place is around 120 mgs of caffine (16 less then what you would have by drinking 40 oz of soda)
You should not be getting massive headaches from caffine withdrawl off of 40 oz a day, unless you are very small, have a screwy metabolism, or don't eat much.
I can drink 2 cups of coffe (around 12 ozers) a day and not get withdral symptoms (then again I weigh 200+ lbs)

and as for Morality?

well I can only post the defenition of morals again:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>the quality of an action which renders it good; the conformity of an act to the accepted standard of right</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
accepted standard of right.
who is the one accepting.
society.
what is a society?
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
so yes. Christianity is a society, and thus creates morals. It dosn't make them any more correct then any one elses. You can fall back again and again to 'god makes us right' but all that showes is that you are closed minded.

Again, I have nothing wrong with any religion (save those that promote violence, or illtreatment of any one. And there are no major religions that do that.). I just have problems with when people can take an idea past 'god said so'.

oh, and as for god's morals being imutable?
Hell didn't exist untill christianity.
The existance of other gods ussed to be a given.
Getting **** faced on certain holidays ussed to be a GOOD thing.
What ever happened to the Kosher laws? (they are still in your bible)

meh.

Evil_bOb1 · August 2004

My... that was a long read and i felt like posting myself on all this as i like thinking too <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /> . But instead of following the actual thread mouvement i was thinking of giving my own point of view of all these subject.

Starting note. I have no idea if im right or wrong, who can judge if i am or not? This is just my lastest opinion (as i tend to evolve my thoughts as i think everything through) so please don't be offended by what i say and if you think im wrong i'll gladly listen to your point of view. This is how (i believe) one can evolve and achieve "wisdom". Second english isn't my language so im not too sure of all the terms especially the scientific ones.

<b>God</b>

Let me start with the beginning of all. I have recently come to believe in the existance of some kind of entity which can be called by the term "god" as it is the creator of all.

Existance follows a great number of laws which makes everything coherent. We are more or less concient of theses laws, we can build scientific models to predict how they'll effect us, but are unable to explain them.

First example: the law of gravity. If one drops an object, it is for him entirely coherent for it to fall in a certain manner, he could also predict the object's trajectory using the appropriate phisic model. We have identified this as the gravitational force but can anyone tell why it exists?

Now that you (hopefully) get what i mean but these "laws", lets take another example. The "undescriptible gene law". A series of atomes rightly put together (DNA) in a mother cell will create the concerned being. With the understanding of this law theoreticly one could create any being he wanted, it being a angel(winged human), unicorn or whatever passes through the man's mind. The DNA code is universally understood by life. The sequences are universally coherent to a mother cell. Whatever the DNA says, the mother cell will become. But any random sequence won't work. How come a mother cell could understand these things?

This is where god comes in action. In a phisic simulation one programs a certain number of laws just like for the HL2 phisic engine <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /> and the world follows these laws. In a way i believe we are a creator's (god) simulation who has designed our world to follow a certain number of rules which makes our world coherent. I believe we can explain a lot of things but some are just beyond our perception and the only explanation i've found is that we have a creator and it is all natural to call him god. I used to believe that things like the universe, solar systems and life are the consequences of multiple chances, that it is the natural way of things, but that makes to much chance in my opinion and there is definitively something missing in that theory. Something so wonderful as life, in all it's deverse forms just the result of chance? come on... <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' />

And with a minimum logic anyway it is better for one to believe in god and that he doesn't exist than for one to not believe in him and that he does exist. ^^

<b>Religion</b>

As for religions they are all just different interpretations of our creator. In a way my belief could be considered a religion. And they are all just as much justified as one another. The old testament's explanation of the genesis is an interpretation of life by the people of it's time and one cannot blame them for believing it at the time as for any other religion's explanation of the genesis of life.

What people have done with religion is another story. Some people have used (and still do) religion as a way of control. Therefore to refute a religion is to refute the keeper of the concerned religion's power. This is why some religions have been maintained at their original state for many centuries and this has made them completly out of date with the commom beliefs which move on like in the scientific domain for example.

In a religion like christinanity which has maintained power for around 2000 years (this figure could be discussed but it's exactitude is not relevent in my argumentation, you get the point i hope) , it's "out of dateness" has become more and more obvious to the concerned population, and it has been rejected buy a great number of the traditionnal followers. I think this is why those who don't believe in religion reject it so violently. I also think it is a great error to reject religion in all it's forms. I think one should learn these interpretations of life as one learns how man once though the world was flat or that there was no link between mass and energy. To learn the histoiry and progress of phisics is to learn what we have discovered and why and in the same way to learn and respect different religions is to learn man's different beliefs of Creation and Life. Man evolves in all domains, and i think man should evolve in it's religion. I find it sad that one completly rejects religion as he finds it unbelievable or stupid. Just think that in 2000 years man will look on us and surely find our beliefs completly stupid even in the scientific domain. Man has still a lot to discover and if one rejects Man's ancient beliefs, well i find this person has a bit too much self estime of his own beliefs.

Im going to stop this for it is late and i have taken a great time to write it even if i still haven't talked about morality and other stuff... don't worry i'll be back hehe

FilthyLarry · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 5 2004, 03:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The things that makes God right is the fact that he is the perfect, righteous creator. The fact that he can smite you all to hell if you don't do what he says is irrelevant. So much for the "might makes right". If you are going to persist on that, I am going to say that Gods might is perfect, and,being the creator, he has every right to enforce his morals on us. Unlike huimans, he is not trying to enforce one set of flawed morals on another set of flawed morals. However, God doesn't use his power to enforce his morals, just reinforce them. When Adam and Eve sinned, God didn't strike them down with almighty wrath, he did what he said he would do - punish them. From Abraham, he chose the people of Israel...
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I disagree, I think that God clearly demonstrates enforcing morals e.g. the great flood. If you didn't change your ways you were killed. Sounds like enforcing to me. Also, a statement like God is right because he is "righteous" seems rather circular.

I also disagree that Adam and Eve sinned, but I guess that's another can of worms entirely.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
i) If God were to hand down new commandment's tomorrow, what would you do ? Abandon your old morality and there goes your absolute argument.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, because He is God. But that's not going to happen (for the same reason. God is unchanging). Therefore, our position of moral absolutes is unchanged.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So basically you admit to not keeping the morals for any intrinsic value, but because they were handed down - as you believe - by a superior being. God might be unchanging but it seems to me that what he expects of people changes. Pre and Post Jesus right ? Therefore I'd say that your moral absolutes are on notice.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>ii) There are instances in the bible where quite frankly God allows Israelites to do some pretty scary things. So the idea of "thou shalt not kill" contradicts alot of stuff out there in the old Testament. Again, no absolute morality here.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The 10 commandments actually say "do not murder". Murdering is diferent from killing. Murder is unlawful, unjustified killing. In a war, you are not going to find every christian becoming a pacifist because of the 10 commandments. Unfortunately, killing is necessary.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

With all due respect, I think it is very debatable as to what the true meaning of that commandment is. I've see arguments for "murder" and I've seen arguments for "killing". I've seen arguments that say 'thou shalt not steal' is more in-line with 'thou shalt not kidnap'. Such is the problem when you study a document from another time and place.

Let's assume that your definition is right though. So basically killing is ok when God says its ok (it's his law after all). So who decides whether a war is justified in the first place ? Is it ok to declare war on anyone you feel like and then claim the moral high ground because it's war time ? Do all Commandments come with such a "but if God gives you permission" escape clause ? Seems rather shaky to me.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So, as a non-Christian, what gives me the right to say Hitler was "wrong" ? Well, as a living human being it is my birthright - as it is all of ours - to have an opinion on the actions of any other human being.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Sure, you can say whatever you want, but what gives you the right to enoforce your views on someone else? Their opinion is just as valid as yours, and the fact that you have a bigger gun isn't going to change that.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, I don't think anything gives me the right per se, and vice versa. I suppose thats why alot of wars are fought in the first place.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Can I give you a suggestion. Don't use the KJV in arguments, its about 640 years out of date.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I can't help it though, the language use is very interesting.

Marine0I · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I disagree, I think that God clearly demonstrates enforcing morals e.g. the great flood. If you didn't change your ways you were killed. Sounds like enforcing to me. Also, a statement like God is right because he is "righteous" seems rather circular.

I also disagree that Adam and Eve sinned, but I guess that's another can of worms entirely.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I don't think God enforces morals with "Acts of God" like the flood. He pretty much decided - these guys are pure evil, I'd be better off just wiping them out. Thats not moral enforcement, thats taking out the trash.

Point taken about the circular nature of God being right, because he's righteous. Its kinda like saying the law is legal. The law is, by its very nature, legal. I guess thats what boggle is trying to say.

I can find no reason to accept that Adam and Eve didnt sin. If you accept the Bible as truth, and consequently the Adam and Eve story, then you are also forced to accept that an all powerful, all good, and rule setting God exists. He gave them an explicit instruction, they disobeyed it. In the Biblical framework, sin is going against God. Doing what you are told not too by God is textbook sin.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So basically you admit to not keeping the morals for any intrinsic value, but because they were handed down - as you believe - by a superior being. God might be unchanging but it seems to me that what he expects of people changes. Pre and Post Jesus right ? Therefore I'd say that your moral absolutes are on notice.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again I have to disagree - the Biblical definition of morality is doing what God tells you too. If God tells Moses to commit genocide, then that is morally right. He is fully justified in doing so - he created people, and as their creator he has the authority to demand an end to their life. Is it morally right for me to commit genocide? Not unless God tells me too. Post Jesus, the message of salvation was taken to the Gentiles. That is why we feel completely comfortable ignoring Jewish ritual laws given in Leviticus - those are given to Jews, not us. Is that in inconsistent position - I dont think so.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>With all due respect, I think it is very debatable as to what the true meaning of that commandment is. I've see arguments for "murder" and I've seen arguments for "killing". I've seen arguments that say 'thou shalt not steal' is more in-line with 'thou shalt not kidnap'. Such is the problem when you study a document from another time and place.

Let's assume that your definition is right though. So basically killing is ok when God says its ok (it's his law after all). So who decides whether a war is justified in the first place ? Is it ok to declare war on anyone you feel like and then claim the moral high ground because it's war time ? Do all Commandments come with such a "but if God gives you permission" escape clause ? Seems rather shaky to me.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Please, I'd love to get a peek at those arguements for murder. I've only recently become aware of the debates that rage over the Hebrew, Arabic and Greek translations. And I now see that what I typed above you already understand - but seeing as I took the time to type it ur gonna have to read it!

Good points. If you honestly feel that God is compelling you to start a war, then the only correct thing to do is grab your gun. Which is worrying, cause I know of whacko's that hear "God" telling them to kill their kids. This is a constant struggle for me - wrestling with the question of "Is this really the right thing to do according to what God wants, or am I substituting what God wants with what I want". The only thing this really tells me is that its impossible to be a half interested Christian, you have to be constantly reading the Bible, praying, going to church, evaluating your decisions, challenging what you believe or you are going to get so much wrong its terrifying.

Here is how the "If God gives me permission" business. I would say "If you feel that God is compelling you to do this, then the only real option for you is to do it. However, I feel that God is not compelling you to, I think you are mistaken, and as such I am going to oppose what you do in any way I can. If what you are doing is God's will, then I'll lose. If I lose and its still evil, then God will judge what you do. If I'm wrong, and I stop you, then God will surely reward you for your effort. The bottom line is <b>I will do what I consider morally right according to God's will</b> I have nothing better to offer." This is why Christians have REALLY gotta stop judging people - the best they can do is try and follow what they think God is telling them to do.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I can't help it though, the language use is very interesting.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Eheheheheh there is one pwnage passage in which Pauls describes futility as like "P1ssing in the wind". My Dad used to quote it all the time, much to my mother's disgust.

ekent · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Aug 6 2004, 04:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Mariguana - the doorway drug. It is touted as being "moraly wrong" for years - and yet now there is "medicinal mariguana" - moraly right. In fact, if the "public" had its way, mariguana would be OK. The wrongness of it has disappeared. More people have tried it than other drugs, more people have had "friends" who tried it. Heck Bill Clinton tried it "but didn't inhale".

So here we have morality derived from society YES - is it an absolute morality - NO.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Obviously they didn't pay attention to My Friends <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' />. Other than that, you're not actually extending my line of reasoning, you're stating examples from the past. In which case I say, "um, ok."

I think you're trying to dispute something that I didn't actually say. In my first post I offered, "The crux in this thread is obviously who is doing the accepting?"

When I said "you're all creating a false dilemma [to the problem of who is doing the accepting]," I was hinting at a third choice. The third choice is sort of the filter between God and any society -- that is, the individual. Morality is always absolute within the individual and wholly consistant for their goals.

So what is the individual perspective? It says, do what you need to do to ensure your success. I happen to believe that history has shown us compassionate morals are the ones most often successful, but it's obviously up to the individual to decide. I can't see any meaningful difference between the morals of a deeply religious individual and the identical morals of an athiest.

FilthyLarry · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 7 2004, 03:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I don't think God enforces morals with "Acts of God" like the flood. He pretty much decided - these guys are pure evil, I'd be better off just wiping them out. Thats not moral enforcement, thats taking out the trash.

Point taken about the circular nature of God being right, because he's righteous. Its kinda like saying the law is legal. The law is, by its very nature, legal. I guess thats what boggle is trying to say.

I can find no reason to accept that Adam and Eve didnt sin. If you accept the Bible as truth, and consequently the Adam and Eve story, then you are also forced to accept that an all powerful, all good, and rule setting God exists. He gave them an explicit instruction, they disobeyed it. In the Biblical framework, sin is going against God. Doing what you are told not too by God is textbook sin.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, I think I can see where you guys are coming from with God not 'enforcing' per se. I assume you mean that he could have just altered their minds to the point where they blindy obey, but chose not to.

I still see it as enforcement though, in the sense that he forcibly removed people that -presumably - did not wish to die with acts like the flood, for failing to live up to his expectations. This seems much like how police operate in society. If you commit a crime you are arrested, and if you resist arrest you are inviting force to be visited upon you - to the point of being killed perhaps.

As for Adam and Eve. To be frank I don't believe they had the intellect to fully grasp the gravity of the situation. I base this on the fact that once they 'ate the fruit' they underwent a change of consciousness/mental capactiy and started to understand things. For this reason I don't believe they should have been judged guilty of sinning.
Just my opinion of course.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Again I have to disagree - the Biblical definition of morality is doing what God tells you too. If God tells Moses to commit genocide, then that is morally right. He is fully justified in doing so - he created people, and as their creator he has the authority to demand an end to their life. Is it morally right for me to commit genocide? Not unless God tells me too. Post Jesus, the message of salvation was taken to the Gentiles. That is why we feel completely comfortable ignoring Jewish ritual laws given in Leviticus - those are given to Jews, not us. Is that in inconsistent position - I dont think so.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I disagree on the rights of the creator though. I feel that if you create a living/intelligent/feeling creature you do not have a right to merely 'pull the plug' when it turns out to not behave the way you intended. This is probably not something that we could reasonably debate because it is at way too fundamental a level. It's like us looking at the same colour and me declaring it to be 'red' while you say it's 'blue'.

This does bring up an interesting point though. Technically, God may have created the first humans, but since then... we create ourselves no ? I mean it's our free will to decide whether or not to have children. So even if you believe the creator has the right to terminate it's child, is it really God's child ? And why should parents not be able to kill their children at will then if they find themselves at war with a child's morals ?

Anyways, my original point here is that I believe God has in the past handed down new laws to people, and hence the morals he expects people to adhere to have changed. This was to debunk the idea of 'god morality' being non-fluctuating.

I see what you mean about jewish laws not necessarily applying to others. But what about jews that were born before Jesus and were alive during his lifetime ? They were expected to change their world-view no ? To believe in Jesus and do right by those new ideas.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Please, I'd love to get a peek at those arguements for murder. I've only recently become aware of the debates that rage over the Hebrew, Arabic and Greek translations. And I now see that what I typed above you already understand - but seeing as I took the time to type it ur gonna have to read it!
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

<a href='http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Rabbi_0035.htm' target='_blank'>Ask the Rabbi</a> as he seems to think its "murder". <a href='http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=31043' target='_blank'>Another thread about this.</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Good points. If you honestly feel that God is compelling you to start a war, then the only correct thing to do is grab your gun. Which is worrying, cause I know of whacko's that hear "God" telling them to kill their kids. This is a constant struggle for me - wrestling with the question of "Is this really the right thing to do according to what God wants, or am I substituting what God wants with what I want".
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, it is something which scares me also. I get especially nervous of any leader of a country that claims to be doing God's will. This reminds me of a story I heard about a soldier becoming atheist during WW2. He said the reason was because everybody claimed God to be on their side.

I am glad that you at least give things like this much thought.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Eheheheheh there is one pwnage passage in which Pauls describes futility as like "P1ssing in the wind". My Dad used to quote it all the time, much to my mother's disgust.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Hehe, I do find myself grinning at that <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

Marine0I · August 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well, I think I can see where you guys are coming from with God not 'enforcing' per se. I assume you mean that he could have just altered their minds to the point where they blindy obey, but chose not to.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, he could have I guess, but decided to leave them with their free will.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I still see it as enforcement though, in the sense that he forcibly removed people that -presumably - did not wish to die with acts like the flood, for failing to live up to his expectations. This seems much like how police operate in society. If you commit a crime you are arrested, and if you resist arrest you are inviting force to be visited upon you - to the point of being killed perhaps. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The way I see it, God is working to a plan. He doesnt do a mass cleansing of the Earth for kicks and giggles. I'm pretty sure he saw these people fubaring his plan, so killed them to prevent that. Ultimately, he gets to deal out judgement, in this lifetime or after - so if he kills I think he does so with a purpose. Its not like he's in a hurry to bring them to justice.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As for Adam and Eve. To be frank I don't believe they had the intellect to fully grasp the gravity of the situation. I base this on the fact that once they 'ate the fruit' they underwent a change of consciousness/mental capactiy and started to understand things. For this reason I don't believe they should have been judged guilty of sinning.
Just my opinion of course.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, I guess this is one of those times where I refer back to my faith in an all good, all just God. It was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, yet they knew they should obey God absolutely. They made the decision not to, and that let evil into the world.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I disagree on the rights of the creator though. I feel that if you create a living/intelligent/feeling creature you do not have a right to merely 'pull the plug' when it turns out to not behave the way you intended. This is probably not something that we could reasonably debate because it is at way too fundamental a level. It's like us looking at the same colour and me declaring it to be 'red' while you say it's 'blue'.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well I read a good quote about this the other day. It was made by a man named Ravi Zacharias in response to a question about abortion:

"My question to you, madam, is this. When you arrogate the right to yourself to choose who may live in your womb and who may die, you call it your moral right. But when God exercises the same right, you call him evil. Can you explain this contradiction to me?"

The textbook reply to that would be to deny the unborn child a whit of humanity. As humans always do when they set out to kill and destroy, they declare what they are killing/destroying as lesser. The Jews are dogs, the negro's are sub human, cows cant think, its not a person, its a fetus etc etc etc. We kill and eat cows, and see nothing wrong with it, because we consider them less than us. How must God view us?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This does bring up an interesting point though. Technically, God may have created the first humans, but since then... we create ourselves no ? I mean it's our free will to decide whether or not to have children. So even if you believe the creator has the right to terminate it's child, is it really God's child ? And why should parents not be able to kill their children at will then if they find themselves at war with a child's morals ?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yeah, it is God's child. We may take care of the biology, but God loans them a soul. And anyway, God created every element in their body. Its like your kid creating a playhouse out of bricks you bought for him, then declaring it his sole property. You paid for the bricks, you fed him while he constructed it, you gave him somewhere to sleep, he built it in YOUR backyard that you paid for. Clearly, unless you give it to him and tell him he owns it, its yours.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Anyways, my original point here is that I believe God has in the past handed down new laws to people, and hence the morals he expects people to adhere to have changed. This was to debunk the idea of 'god morality' being non-fluctuating.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, I refer back to what I said about different laws handed to different people. The morals he expects people to adher to have stayed the same - "If I tell you to do it, then damn well do it, if I've told you not to, then DONT!" He expected the Jews to do exactly what he told them. Some things became the wrong thing to do merely because he told them not to at the time - for example eating honey out of a bears carcase. However, some things were wrong universally, and they got special mention. The harsh emphasis upon the abomination of homosexuality has led to its adoption by the modern church - simply because God laid it down good and firm to the Jews that this wasnt just tradition/customs, this was evil (abomination is the word in my bible) - something that needed to be rooted out asap.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I see what you mean about jewish laws not necessarily applying to others. But what about jews that were born before Jesus and were alive during his lifetime ? They were expected to change their world-view no ? To believe in Jesus and do right by those new ideas.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Actually, yes. Jesus went first to the Jews and said "Its me guys, the culmination of your entire history, the fufillment of prophecies 1 through to 340, your promised messiah, an boooyyy are there going to be changes around here." They werent terribly pleased about the expected changes, and were a little dissappointed when they realised the great slaughter of their Roman oppressors wasnt about to take place. So he decided to take the message to the Gentiles instead. The Jews got first bite at the cherry and spat it out.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes, it is something which scares me also. I get especially nervous of any leader of a country that claims to be doing God's will. This reminds me of a story I heard about a soldier becoming atheist during WW2. He said the reason was because everybody claimed God to be on their side.

I am glad that you at least give things like this much thought.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, I dont like it when people try and tell me "Its God's will I'm doing, so who the hell are you to question it". That makes me suspicious. However, if someone believes in God, and makes a decision to do something, then 9 times out of 10 they will believe thats what God wants them to do. I'm sure GWB thinks he is doing what God wants him to do in Iraq. It doesnt automatically make him a dangerous, raving religious psychotic though.

I have heard that story about that soldier also - but I honestly think he missed the point. He was merely discovering the simple fact that we cant all be right. Dont make me bring up relative morals again <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

kida · August 2004

There are certain things I would like to say and so many more irrelevant, but I feel that a man shouldn't literate his opinions until he is very well assure that each word speaks true and more importantly if not, to himself. Well you can say that at this day and age I don't have any real relative clue as to who I am, and thus to say my uneducated opinions would warrent false ideas, although they are my opinions, but none-the-less.

That is why I don't like posting replies on discussion forums anymore. I'am young and I still have a long ways to go in understanding all aspects of knowledge. I don't feel as if my opinions are justified and am aware that my talk is but artful dialect - rhetoric - the stuff that fancy philosophers build their reasons upon sophilisms. All I do is infect. So therefore now when I read other people's opinions I have to discern the truth from the false with whatever good sense is inlaid.

The general conesensus I get are three.

In the first, society is responsible for morality.
The second states that individuality is the key factor.
And in the third it states that God is the burning core of it all.

Hey marine, tell me more about relative morals and the what the conclusion of that thread was. It would be very much appreciated. Thanks.

Ok you all have fun debating!

Pepe_Muffassa · August 2004

Marine, love the posts. You manage to do what I can only try - touch on tough doctrine without being confusing.

Oh, and like kida said, a solioquey on relatavistic morals would be much appreciated <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Marine0I · August 2004

Kida, I cant agree. The only way to figure out if what you are saying is truth is to hold it up for public criticism. Nothing sorts out the good arguements from the bad like someone trying to pick holes in your theory. Human's can never know for 100% certainty whats right and whats wrong based around observvation - sometimes you just have to take things on faith. Very, VERY cautiously when you do, but if you wait around for something you can state without fearing the possibility of being wrong, you wont say anything, ever, and that would be a damn shame.

The relative morals thread didnt go anywhere conclusively. When I said "Dont make me bring up relative morals again", I wasnt refering to dredging up a thread in which the truth and sheer brilliance of my own arguements had triumphed over the blasphemous heathens of the discussion forum <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />, I was merely drawing a constrast between the statement "We cant all be right" and relative morals, which tries to claim we can.

Thanks for the support pepe, but I cant take credit for most of my ideas, its heavily influenced by the likes of John Blanchard, J I Packer and CS Lewis.

What can be said of relative morals? The only truely admirable thing about it is that it attempts to promote tolerance, and thats a great thing in short supply in this world. It is one of the most consistantly cited and consistently ignored theories in circulation - people will with one breath propound relative morals, and in the next try and criticise the apartheid in South Africa. Societies simply do not cut it as moral arbiters. Societies are the sum of its people, and people are inherantly flawed. Society has got it wrong before, and will get it wrong in the future.

Relative morals are impossible to apply to real life, and are the philosophical equivalent of a shrug of the shoulders. Summed up, its "Who knows whats right, so you do your thing, I'll do mine, and lets none of us criticise the other." That sort of surrender goes against the grain of everything I believe in - everything is permitted, nothing should be fought against, evil and good reduced to mere opinion. Unfortunately, most people refuse to follow their thoughts much beyond the "Hey its tolerant, it must be good" stage <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' />

You Know, I Was Thinking...

Comments