Arrest the Pope!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…they did what they thought was the right thing to do in order to save themselves. They were wrong, because by doing so they didn’t actually save themselves. The average set of mores we have today has evolved socially, and has proven to be succesful. Where’s the problem?
[/quote]

Because it links those ideas to an outcome that could be depending on those ideas or not.

That is not a moral code but an attempt to appease the gods, which is ironically what the Azteks tried to do.

You have nothing to say against the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of the American Indians or slavery because those societies still exist.

You are arguing for a version of “might makes right”.

[/quote]

…the spanish empire, as it existed at that time, does not exist anymore. And the global american empire is unsustainable, i expect it’ll implode within our lifetime. The roman empire had customs that are unthinkable in modern times, yet the empire lasted for [in part] for 1500 years. Be patient…

…“might makes right” is another way of saying “survial of the fittest”. I may not like aspects of it, but that doesn’t change the principle. This discussion on morality is basically moot because we’re still highly evolved animals, and nature is in essence a-moral. That humans tend to self-organise the system is not an indication of a higher order, imo…
[/quote]

Then we’ve come full circle, haven’t we? And if this is your answer then you had better think long and hard about its implications, because from this conclusion there is a single, straight path that leads exactly to what you claim to abhor.

362

If it does nothing else, hell even if, as some of you believe, it does not actually exist*, the idea of a Moral Law can serve to keep societies healthy, on track, functioning, and thriving. If this discussion has demonstrated one thing, it is that humans and their cultural groups are NOT to be trusted to take care of themselves and others. We clearly need guidance. Moral Law serves as the guide. Thing is, it will ONLY be a guide. Not a parent. Not a police officer. It does not control us in any manner. Rather, it sits, patiently waiting, always. If we choose, of our own volition, to act in accordance with it, we will be richly rewarded. And when we act in violation of it, those sitting on the outside know we’ve violated it.

And for those who say they believe in “survival of the fittest” in its purest form, I’m sorry, I just cannot buy that you really think that what the Aztecs did, or the American plantation owners, or the Nazis, was just an expression of their adaptation to their surroundings. You know damn well these acts are wrong. And the reason you know they are wrong is the very thing at issue here.

(* I don’t think human society would have gotten far enough for us to even be discussing this if it didn’t, but for the sake of argument)

363

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…the spanish empire, as it existed at that time, does not exist anymore. And the global american empire is unsustainable, i expect it’ll implode within our lifetime. The roman empire had customs that are unthinkable in modern times, yet the empire lasted for [in part] for 1500 years. Be patient…

…“might makes right” is another way of saying “survial of the fittest”. I may not like aspects of it, but that doesn’t change the principle. This discussion on morality is basically moot because we’re still highly evolved animals, and nature is in essence a-moral. That humans tend to self-organise the system is not an indication of a higher order, imo…
[/quote]

Then we’ve come full circle, haven’t we? And if this is your answer then you had better think long and hard about its implications, because from this conclusion there is a single, straight path that leads exactly to what you claim to abhor.
[/quote]

…Cortes, morality is not static, it changes over time as humankind changes. If we survive long enough to overcome our limbic-brain impulses and look with an objective and rational mind at what is fair and just for all, we’ll be able to avoid the excesses of the past, and move towards a future that might very well be a future where your ideas of divine absolute morality comes to fruition…

364

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…the spanish empire, as it existed at that time, does not exist anymore. And the global american empire is unsustainable, i expect it’ll implode within our lifetime. The roman empire had customs that are unthinkable in modern times, yet the empire lasted for [in part] for 1500 years. Be patient…

…“might makes right” is another way of saying “survial of the fittest”. I may not like aspects of it, but that doesn’t change the principle. This discussion on morality is basically moot because we’re still highly evolved animals, and nature is in essence a-moral. That humans tend to self-organise the system is not an indication of a higher order, imo…
[/quote]

Then we’ve come full circle, haven’t we? And if this is your answer then you had better think long and hard about its implications, because from this conclusion there is a single, straight path that leads exactly to what you claim to abhor.
[/quote]

…Cortes, morality is not static, it changes over time as humankind changes. If we survive long enough to overcome our limbic-brain impulses and look with an objective and rational mind at what is fair and just for all, we’ll be able to avoid the excesses of the past, and move towards a future that might very well be a future where your ideas of divine absolute morality comes to fruition…[/quote]

No, eph, Moral Law just is. I personally don’t think humans change much, either, or we haven’t changed much since we began to record our own history. But no matter how far into the future we make it, murder will still be wrong. Slavery will still be evil. Greed and selfishness and abuse and all manner of ills will remain ill. That is what Moral Absolutism is. And you know it’s true.

365

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…the spanish empire, as it existed at that time, does not exist anymore. And the global american empire is unsustainable, i expect it’ll implode within our lifetime. The roman empire had customs that are unthinkable in modern times, yet the empire lasted for [in part] for 1500 years. Be patient…

…“might makes right” is another way of saying “survial of the fittest”. I may not like aspects of it, but that doesn’t change the principle. This discussion on morality is basically moot because we’re still highly evolved animals, and nature is in essence a-moral. That humans tend to self-organise the system is not an indication of a higher order, imo…
[/quote]

Then we’ve come full circle, haven’t we? And if this is your answer then you had better think long and hard about its implications, because from this conclusion there is a single, straight path that leads exactly to what you claim to abhor.
[/quote]

…Cortes, morality is not static, it changes over time as humankind changes. If we survive long enough to overcome our limbic-brain impulses and look with an objective and rational mind at what is fair and just for all, we’ll be able to avoid the excesses of the past, and move towards a future that might very well be a future where your ideas of divine absolute morality comes to fruition…[/quote]

No, eph, Moral Law just is. I personally don’t think humans change much, either, or we haven’t changed much since we began to record our own history. But no matter how far into the future we make it, murder will still be wrong. Slavery will still be evil. Greed and selfishness and abuse and all manner of ills will remain ill. That is what Moral Absolutism is. And you know it’s true.[/quote]

…okay. Thanks Cortes, for this discussion. I enjoyed myself immensely!

367

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Petermus wrote:
Alot of people seem to be confused about how Religion and Christianity is defined. Religion is a set of morals and rules that you would follow for your own sake whether it be reward or moral superiority. Christianity is defined by the bible as having a personal relationship with God and because you love God you want to live in his image and do what he knows is right for you. If you disagree, then ask yourself is it because of the way you’ve seen some christians act…then you are wrong simply because it doesn’t matter if people call themselves christians and act in a way that is non christian…Christianity is still what it is, if it is because you dont think it is defined this way then simply read the parable of “the lost son” Luke 15:11-32 NIV - The Parable of the Lost Son - Jesus - Bible Gateway. the younger brother represents a real christian, the older brother a “religious person” [/quote]

Good post, Pete.[/quote]

Thanks, fixed spelling error =o

368

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…the spanish empire, as it existed at that time, does not exist anymore. And the global american empire is unsustainable, i expect it’ll implode within our lifetime. The roman empire had customs that are unthinkable in modern times, yet the empire lasted for [in part] for 1500 years. Be patient…

…“might makes right” is another way of saying “survial of the fittest”. I may not like aspects of it, but that doesn’t change the principle. This discussion on morality is basically moot because we’re still highly evolved animals, and nature is in essence a-moral. That humans tend to self-organise the system is not an indication of a higher order, imo…
[/quote]

Then we’ve come full circle, haven’t we? And if this is your answer then you had better think long and hard about its implications, because from this conclusion there is a single, straight path that leads exactly to what you claim to abhor.
[/quote]

…Cortes, morality is not static, it changes over time as humankind changes. If we survive long enough to overcome our limbic-brain impulses and look with an objective and rational mind at what is fair and just for all, we’ll be able to avoid the excesses of the past, and move towards a future that might very well be a future where your ideas of divine absolute morality comes to fruition…[/quote]

No, eph, Moral Law just is. I personally don’t think humans change much, either, or we haven’t changed much since we began to record our own history. But no matter how far into the future we make it, murder will still be wrong. Slavery will still be evil. Greed and selfishness and abuse and all manner of ills will remain ill. That is what Moral Absolutism is. And you know it’s true.[/quote]

…okay. Thanks Cortes, for this discussion. I enjoyed myself immensely![/quote]

So did I, ephrem, thanks to you, too!

You PM me when you’re ready to break into some good philosophical texts. I think you’ll be surprised at how much you enjoy them. I mean, if you like what we are spending so much of our time doing here, I cannot see how you could not.

369

[quote]Cortes wrote:

So did I, ephrem, thanks to you, too!

You PM me when you’re ready to break into some good philosophical texts. I think you’ll be surprised at how much you enjoy them. I mean, if you like what we are spending so much of our time doing here, I cannot see how you could not.
[/quote]

…simple; i find, what i’ve read from Plato at least, unreadable and i zone out very quickly. Long sentences with numerous commas and a lot of ifs/whens/thens are boring to me, and another man’s opinion on these issues as an authority on the matter, i just find that hard to do…

…communicating with actual people is far more interesting to me than reading, tbh…

370

Peter Kreeft. Ethics, A History of Moral Thought. Very quick, very engaging, and Professor Kreeft makes the arguments fun and interesting and fairly easy to grasp. Full disclosure, he is a Christian, and certain of his asides here are somewhat biased in that direction, but his treatment of the philosophers and their arguments is very balanced. It is, in short, highly entertaining and richly informative. All of the things that are not what you’ve stated turns you away from most philosophy.

If you just are not interested, I won’t bring it up again. But hopefully this will pique your interest.

371

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Peter Kreeft. Ethics, A History of Moral Thought. Very quick, very engaging, and Professor Kreeft makes the arguments fun and interesting and fairly easy to grasp. Full disclosure, he is a Christian, and certain of his asides here are somewhat biased in that direction, but his treatment of the philosophers and their arguments is very balanced. It is, in short, highly entertaining and richly informative. All of the things that are not what you’ve stated turns you away from most philosophy.

If you just are not interested, I won’t bring it up again. But hopefully this will pique your interest. [/quote]

…there’s a transcript of his lecture on moral relativism here: A Refutation of Moral Relativism [transcription] by Peter Kreeft and i’ve skimmed it, and for starters, you can’t say he’s somewhat bias because he’s a lot bias…

…anyway, i’m having trouble with the first assumption he makes:

“Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day defined a good society as one that makes it easy for you to be good. Correlatively, a free society is one that makes it easy to be free. To be free, and to live freely, is to live spiritually, because only spirit is freeâ??matter is not. To live spiritually is to live morally. The two essential properties of spirit that distinguish it from matter are intellect and willâ??the capacity for knowledge and moral choice. The ideals of truth and goodness. The most radical threat to living morally today is the loss of moral principles.”

…this is the basic premiss he uses for that lecture. I don’t agree with it. For me, a good society is a society where i can live my life as i see fit without doing harm to others, as long as society does not allow others to do me harm…

…mr. Kreeft [means lobster in dutch] then goes on making further assumptions as to why people choose relativism over absolutism. This is also a reason why i don’t read other peoples ideas on these subjects, because if i don’t agree with the assumption, what point is there for me to read on?

…he’s not talking about me, or my views. So why ponder his thoughts when those thoughts are of no consequence to mine?

372

Of course you won’t be pleased with the one you picked out. It’s an apologetic arguing against one of your strongly held beliefs. I don’t feel like reading any Richard Dawkins arguments much, either (I get enough of them here!). But a history of philosophy and ethics (the two are inseparable, imo), contains a ton of atheist as well as Christian thought, along with that of a bunch of folks who don’t fall into either of those categories.

The book/audiobook I suggested is a lecture of sorts in which he does not really take a “side,” per se. It’s more of a brief history of ethical philosophy from its inception. There’s a chapter on Machiavelli, for example.

Anyway, I tried :slight_smile:

373

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Of course you won’t be pleased with the one you picked out. It’s an apologetic arguing against one of your strongly held beliefs. I don’t feel like reading any Richard Dawkins arguments much, either (I get enough of them here!). But a history of philosophy and ethics (the two are inseparable, imo), contains a ton of atheist as well as Christian thought, along with that of a bunch of folks who don’t fall into either of those categories.

The book/audiobook I suggested is a lecture of sorts in which he does not really take a “side,” per se. It’s more of a brief history of ethical philosophy from its inception. There’s a chapter on Machiavelli, for example.

Anyway, I tried :)[/quote]

…but that’s just it Cortes, he’s not talking about a belief i have, he’s talking about reasons for having that belief; reasons that i don’t share with him. So the arguments against relativism have no impact on me. Does that make sense?

374

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

No, he hasn’t. If he did, then the debate would be whether a god exists but whether to worship and obey such a god.

What is the difficulty for an omnipotent being of having an unambiguous message projected to everyone at the same time that says “Hello my son/daughter, I am God. I exist. Here are my laws. Obey me if you wish”?[/quote]

You’re insinuating you think you have the God employment qualifications all figured out. Maybe you should apply for the position? Oh, that’s right - in essence you have.[/quote]

So you think I’m being unreasonable in expecting that the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe would deliver his message clearly? [/quote]

Your definition of “clearly” is clearly subjective.

I think the Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the universe has been crystal clear in his delivery.

I think you’re being unreasonable in claiming He hasn’t done what you desire.

I think Romans 1:18 - 22 is dead on: [i]The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…[/i] [/quote]

Interesting that you avoid arguing that God’s message has been delivered in the clearest manner possible in order to actually attempt to counter my objections, but instead argue that he has been clear enough using scripture as support. How could such an argument possibly convince anyone who held a position different from your own?

Let’s not beat around the bush and get to the logical conclusion of your line of argument: those who are unbelievers deserve the eternal punishment of Hell.

God has been sufficiently clear in his message, those who are unbelievers have no excuse and deserve any punishment they receive, therefore unbelievers deserve the eternal punishment of Hell. Is this an accurate representation of your position? What are the moral implications of such an argument?

Edit: some rewording

375

Also, from what I’ve read in this thread, theists have done very little to logically defend their position that moral absolutes exist and they are derived from a deity.

No Judeo-christian has even attempted to counter the objections I raised earlier, specifically how they reconcile their belief in moral absolutes with the divine commands and laws considered morally repugnant today (genocide, murder, slavery, etc.) and the problems of caused by a New Covenant, expanded Old Covenant or Dual Covenant.

I’m leaving for the moment but I’ll be back later tonight.

376

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Of course you won’t be pleased with the one you picked out. It’s an apologetic arguing against one of your strongly held beliefs. I don’t feel like reading any Richard Dawkins arguments much, either (I get enough of them here!). But a history of philosophy and ethics (the two are inseparable, imo), contains a ton of atheist as well as Christian thought, along with that of a bunch of folks who don’t fall into either of those categories.

The book/audiobook I suggested is a lecture of sorts in which he does not really take a “side,” per se. It’s more of a brief history of ethical philosophy from its inception. There’s a chapter on Machiavelli, for example.

Anyway, I tried :)[/quote]

…but that’s just it Cortes, he’s not talking about a belief i have, he’s talking about reasons for having that belief; reasons that i don’t share with him. So the arguments against relativism have no impact on me. Does that make sense?
[/quote]

It’s a history book. The one I’m suggesting. The one you linked is an apologetic and not the one I suggested you read.

If you don’t want to hear anyone else’s ideas than your own then I can’t really be of much more help.

377

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Also, from what I’ve read in this thread, theists have done very little to logically defend their position that moral absolutes exist and they are derived from a deity.

No Judeo-christian has even attempted to counter the objections I raised earlier, specifically how they reconcile their belief in moral absolutes with the divine commands and laws considered morally repugnant today (genocide, murder, slavery, etc.) and the problems of caused by a New Covenant, expanded Old Covenant or Dual Covenant.

I’m leaving for the moment but I’ll be back later tonight.[/quote]

I’ve not been arguing from the Bible. I’ve stated from the start that there exists a Moral Law. It applies to all humans and all societies. I’m not going to rehash this entire thread, because I’ve made my points over and over. The evidence is, well, self-evident. Answer yes or no, without vacillating or equivocating: Is raping a 7 year old boy in the ass ever, in any circumstance, moral?

There’s your defense.

378

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

No, he hasn’t. If he did, then the debate would be whether a god exists but whether to worship and obey such a god.

What is the difficulty for an omnipotent being of having an unambiguous message projected to everyone at the same time that says “Hello my son/daughter, I am God. I exist. Here are my laws. Obey me if you wish”?[/quote]

You’re insinuating you think you have the God employment qualifications all figured out. Maybe you should apply for the position? Oh, that’s right - in essence you have.[/quote]

So you think I’m being unreasonable in expecting that the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe would deliver his message clearly? [/quote]

Your definition of “clearly” is clearly subjective.

I think the Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the universe has been crystal clear in his delivery.

I think you’re being unreasonable in claiming He hasn’t done what you desire.

I think Romans 1:18 - 22 is dead on: [i]The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…[/i] [/quote]

Interesting that you avoid arguing that God’s message has been delivered in the clearest manner possible and actually attempt to counter my objections, but instead argue that he has been clear enough using scripture as support. How could such an argument possibly convince anyone who held a position different from your own?

Let’s not beat around the bush and get to the logical conclusion of your line of argument: those who are unbelievers deserve the eternal punishment of Hell.

God has been sufficiently clear in his message, those who are unbelievers have no excuse and deserve any punishment they receive, therefore unbelievers deserve the eternal punishment of Hell. Is this an accurate representation of your position? What are the moral implications of such an argument?[/quote]

You are pushing the original scope of this argument into all sorts of shapes it never started as.

Arguing morality as it applies to the Bible alone should be another thread.

Arguing the reconciliation of the Old and New Testaments should be a completely different thread.

Even arguing that the Moral Law is evidence of a Creator or must have been created by a Creator should be relegated to a separate thread (though I admit I did tread here at the beginning of the thread).

Let’s stick with the original topic, if we are going to keep bumping this thing. A Moral Law exists. Yes or no? That’s the question that needs to be answered first.

379

If you want to discuss philosophy, look no further than Bertrand Russell.

If only philosophers prior to him had access to his essay on how he writes. If only philosophers after him had the mental capacity to read that same essay.