Do I believe slavery is wrong , completely and without reserve? Yes.
To me, was it wrong back then too? Yes.[/quote]
I don’t understand that. To say it wasn’t immoral because that was how it was, but then turn around to say it was immoral based on what you ‘know’ now.
But why are you doing that? Shouldn’t you simply say, no, it wasn’t immoral, period. If morality is relative to the times why would you consider it through anything but their prism? Why would you now assign those lives moral value that didn’t/doesn’t exist? You’re intellectually aware the morality is relative, so you should see their lives as a temporary resource. How can you believe something to be true that you’ve decided isn’t?
[quote] Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
It wouldn’t have mattered what you decided (or decide today), because either way those lives would have had no moral value. You would knowingly be lying to yourself.
[/quote]
You asked me what I thought, personally, did you not?
That’s what I gave you, my personal answer…but then you want to extrapolate that to a generality. Apples and oranges.
[/quote]
No, I understand that’s your personal belief. That’s what I’m getting at. If you know morality is relative, then why wouldn’t you suppress any urge to say American slavery was immoral? If you’re aware of your bias, and that it isn’t really founded in reality, why wouldn’t you master that bias, concluding that slaves were simply a resource that had no moral value, needn’t ever have been recognized as having moral value, etc. And THAT would be your intellectually informed personal answer, being aware that morality is relative.
Edit: You would simply say “no, I don’t believe they had moral value inherent to themselves because we hadn’t assigned them any, yet. Therefore, I don’t believe slavery was immoral.”
[/quote]
Because I didn’t get the edit in before your reply…
Do I believe slavery is wrong , completely and without reserve? Yes.
To me, was it wrong back then too? Yes.[/quote]
I don’t understand that. To say it wasn’t immoral because that was how it was, but then turn around to say it was immoral based on what you ‘know’ now.
But why are you doing that? Shouldn’t you simply say, no, it wasn’t immoral, period. If morality is relative to the times why would you consider it through anything but their prism? Why would you now assign those lives moral value that didn’t/doesn’t exist? You’re intellectually aware the morality is relative, so you should see their lives as a temporary resource. How can you believe something to be true that you’ve decided isn’t?
[quote] Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
It wouldn’t have mattered what you decided (or decide today), because either way those lives would have had no moral value. You would knowingly be lying to yourself.
[/quote]
You asked me what I thought, personally, did you not?
That’s what I gave you, my personal answer…but then you want to extrapolate that to a generality. Apples and oranges.
[/quote]
No, I understand that’s your personal belief. That’s what I’m getting at. If you know morality is relative, then why wouldn’t you suppress any urge to say American slavery was immoral? If you’re aware of your bias, and that it isn’t really founded in reality, why wouldn’t you master that bias, concluding that slaves were simply a resource that had no moral value, needn’t ever have been recognized as having moral value, etc. And THAT would be your intellectually informed personal answer, being aware that morality is relative.
[/quote]
I ‘know’ nothing, I have just said that I don’t believe that absolute morality can exist outside of a deist framework. That is, it does not exist outside of man on its own, unless there is a entity to give it existence. I also said we live our lives as if moral absolutism was the norm, and that I have no problem with that, in case you missed it. So no.
[/quote]
Seems weird to me. I couldn’t imagine living my life as a Christian if I didn’t believe in Christ. Seems to me that if I’ve intellectually and consciously accepted moral relativism as reality, then I wouldn’t personally believe something is immoral, when I don’t believe it is in reality.
Do I believe slavery is wrong , completely and without reserve? Yes.
To me, was it wrong back then too? Yes.[/quote]
I don’t understand that. To say it wasn’t immoral because that was how it was, but then turn around to say it was immoral based on what you ‘know’ now.
But why are you doing that? Shouldn’t you simply say, no, it wasn’t immoral, period. If morality is relative to the times why would you consider it through anything but their prism? Why would you now assign those lives moral value that didn’t/doesn’t exist? You’re intellectually aware the morality is relative, so you should see their lives as a temporary resource. How can you believe something to be true that you’ve decided isn’t?
[quote] Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
It wouldn’t have mattered what you decided (or decide today), because either way those lives would have had no moral value. You would knowingly be lying to yourself.
[/quote]
You asked me what I thought, personally, did you not?
That’s what I gave you, my personal answer…but then you want to extrapolate that to a generality. Apples and oranges.
[/quote]
No, I understand that’s your personal belief. That’s what I’m getting at. If you know morality is relative, then why wouldn’t you suppress any urge to say American slavery was immoral? If you’re aware of your bias, and that it isn’t really founded in reality, why wouldn’t you master that bias, concluding that slaves were simply a resource that had no moral value, needn’t ever have been recognized as having moral value, etc. And THAT would be your intellectually informed personal answer, being aware that morality is relative.
[/quote]
I ‘know’ nothing, I have just said that I don’t believe that absolute morality can exist outside of a deist framework. That is, it does not exist outside of man on its own, unless there is a entity to give it existence. I also said we live our lives as if moral absolutism was the norm, and that I have no problem with that, in case you missed it. So no.
[/quote]
Seems weird to me. I couldn’t imagine living my life as a Christian if I didn’t believe in Christ. Seems to me that if I’ve intellectually and consciously accepted moral relativism as reality, that I wouldn’t say something is immoral when I KNOW it’s not.
[/quote]
Hey, we’re just shooting the breeze here…I’m not out to convert anyone or annihilate someone’s position. Kamui sees morality as existing on its own metaphysically without needing man nor god to give it existence, and I don’t. That’s the long and the short of it.
I know the intrinsic problems with my position, I’m not trying to prove anyone wrong or belittle anyone’s beliefs.
Hey, we’re just shooting the breeze here…I’m not out to convert anyone or annihilate someone’s position. Kamui sees morality as existing on its own metaphysically without needing man nor god to give it existence, and I don’t. That’s the long and the short of it.
I know the intrinsic problems with my position, I’m not trying to prove anyone wrong or belittle anyone’s beliefs. [/quote]
[quote]All I’m saying is - No framework (god, gods, whtever) , moral relativism is what there is.
With deities- Moral absolutism is possible.[/quote]
I can see why you’d think like that.
You systematically reduce morality to opinions about morality.
with such a premise, absolute morality would be an absolute opinion about morality.
Only an absolute being can have absolute opinion
Therefore moral absolutism is only possible “with deities”.
Is this pseudo-syllogistic rendition close to your views ?
The problem with such a view is its premise.
if you don’t accept that morality is not (or not only) opinion, but actual truth, there is another immediate, unavoidable consequence :
propositions about morality can not be falsified or disproved in any way.
If that’s true, then all discussion of this subject are ultimately pointless.
that would obviously include our current discussion, and any discussion taking place in a democratic parliament. [/quote]Which is why, philosophically speaking, only private consensus, which is unenforceable in the public arena can actually govern morality in fact and not just by external coercion upon the will under pain of punishment.
In other words a morally divided populous is utterly ungovernable without the group with the biggest gun denying the other groups the freedom to do as they please.
To quote (paraphrasing) that great French philosopher Kamui: “all propositions are in the end reduced to tautology”. Which from the standpoint of finite sinful autonomous man I agree with entirely. Faith is the only escape from tautology. Tautology being another word for uncertainty. Being unable to function pragmatically on the basis of uncertainty for even one millisecond we all live move and breathe in faith. It’s only a matter of what in. What does this have to with moral authority? I’m not asking Kamui because he already knows. Absolutely everything.
[/quote]Many things cannot be proved or disproved, so we are left with faith. The amount of faith required in day to day life is quite staggering.[/quote]Actually nothing can be proved or disproved on the basis of internal human intellect. Nothing. Everything, even 2+2=4 is taken, when the shouting’s over, by faith. That’s why I say that epistemology is the key to everything. Everybody has one (of two) and which one it is should dictate every other thought a person thinks, including morality. IF they were consistent. Of course they are not consistent though and are constantly rippin off my epistemology because theirs has been broken since Genesis 3. That’s where they get the certainty required for them to function and the morality that keeps them by the common grace of God from destroying the earth by dinner time. Nothing could be more offensive, unenlightened or unworthy of their autonomous sensibilities than what I just said. Which is exactly how they’re SUPPOSED to respond. Until given new life in Christ that is. Then it’s second nature. Well, first nature actually. The old man still in Adam yet enslaved to sin is second nature. Until the resurrection when the saints receive their new bodies just like the one Jesus took with Him to heaven after His resurrection at the ascension. LOL! I frequently find myself chuckling because I know that people will be staring at their screens wondering how a fairly smart guy can possibly believe these antique fairy tales. LOL! Bless His glorious name.
[quote]All I’m saying is - No framework (god, gods, whtever) , moral relativism is what there is.
With deities- Moral absolutism is possible.[/quote]
I can see why you’d think like that.
You systematically reduce morality to opinions about morality.
with such a premise, absolute morality would be an absolute opinion about morality.
Only an absolute being can have absolute opinion
Therefore moral absolutism is only possible “with deities”.
Is this pseudo-syllogistic rendition close to your views ?
The problem with such a view is its premise.
if you don’t accept that morality is not (or not only) opinion, but actual truth, there is another immediate, unavoidable consequence :
propositions about morality can not be falsified or disproved in any way.
If that’s true, then all discussion of this subject are ultimately pointless.
that would obviously include our current discussion, and any discussion taking place in a democratic parliament. [/quote]Which is why, philosophically speaking, only private consensus, which is unenforceable in the public arena can actually govern morality in fact and not just by external coercion upon the will under pain of punishment.
In other words a morally divided populous is utterly ungovernable without the group with the biggest gun denying the other groups the freedom to do as they please.
To quote (paraphrasing) that great French philosopher Kamui: “all propositions are in the end reduced to tautology”. Which from the standpoint of finite sinful autonomous man I agree with entirely. Faith is the only escape from tautology. Tautology being another word for uncertainty. Being unable to function pragmatically on the basis of uncertainty for even one millisecond we all live move and breathe in faith. It’s only a matter of what in. What does this have to with moral authority? I’m not asking Kamui because he already knows. Absolutely everything.
[/quote]Many things cannot be proved or disproved, so we are left with faith. The amount of faith required in day to day life is quite staggering.[/quote]Actually nothing can be proved or disproved on the basis of internal human intellect. Nothing. Everything, even 2+2=4 is taken, when the shouting’s over, by faith. That’s why I say that epistemology is the key to everything. Everybody has one (of two) and which one it is should dictate every other thought a person thinks, including morality. IF they were consistent. Of course they are not consistent though and are constantly rippin off my epistemology because theirs has been broken since Genesis 3. That’s where they get the certainty required for them to function and the morality that keeps them by the common grace of God from destroying the earth by dinner time. Nothing could be more offensive, unenlightened or unworthy of their autonomous sensibilities than what I just said. Which is exactly how they’re SUPPOSED to respond. Until given new life in Christ that is. Then it’s second nature. Well, first nature actually. The old man still in Adam yet enslaved to sin is second nature. Until the resurrection when the saints receive their new bodies just like the one Jesus took with Him to heaven after His resurrection at the ascension. LOL! I frequently find myself chuckling because I know that people will be staring at their screens wondering how a fairly smart guy can possibly believe these antique fairy tales. LOL! Bless His glorious name.
[/quote]
You do love your 2+2=4 hehe…almost as much as you love writing in a convoluted manner. I know you love your 16th century style, but you should maybe try make an effort to simplify it and make it a little more contemporary friendly if you want to be winning hearts and minds. Jis sayin’
Now 2+2=4 I can confidently state is non dependent on us or a deity being around to be true. Mathematics IS a universal truth (even if I was really crap at it, I can still see that)
I know, I know, you’re gonna get all medieval on my ass for saying that. But I have been following, and until you bring up whatever your rebuttal to Dr.Matt and others that you keep teasing about, I won’t engage.
Fair enough, but quoting Duke Nukem doesn’t do much to enhance my confidence in your confident assertions. This thread is not about epistemology (though everything actually is). How’s this for simple. The exact same authority that makes 2+2 objectively 4 also makes gay marriage an abominable oxymoron. Both are true or false together, but only their truth is an actual possibility.
No offense to anybody else, but only Kamui is gonna get that. He won’t agree, but he WILL understand. In fact he can probably give a rather solid exposition of why I say that. He may even go so far as to express respect for the system of thought from whence it is spawned, while he disagrees. The problem of the one and the many Kamui. That’s a must do date. It IS a biggie though and will consume some time.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Fair enough, but quoting Duke Nukem doesn’t do much to enhance my confidence in your confident assertions. This thread is not about epistemology (though everything actually is). How’s this for simple. The exact same authority that makes 2+2 objectively 4 also makes gay marriage an abominable oxymoron. Both are true or false together, but only their truth is an actual possibility.
No offense to anybody else, but only Kamui is gonna get that. He won’t agree, but he WILL understand. In fact he can probably give a rather solid exposition of why I say that. He may even go so far as to express respect for the system of thought from whence it is spawned, while he disagrees. The problem of the one and the many Kamui. That’s a must do date. It IS a biggie though and will consume some time. [/quote]
There is nothing I could possibly say that would enhance your confidence in my assertions, and it’s not something I’m even remotely trying to do. As for the rest of it…your desire to order the chaos clouds your vision a wee bit.
I was joking. I used to play Duke all the time. See what happens when I don’t use the =] to indicate humor? Experiment failed. I’m usin em again.
There is no chaos once your vision is repaired by the God who IS order itself.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
If morality is an immutable metaphysical law existing forever and always, it sure took a very long time to shine through, didn’t it? [/quote]
Is that really that crazy of a notion though?
If a few “powerful” people are willing to use immoral means to gain more power, why wouldn’t the followers, just follow? The person making the social rules isn’t moral by default, he or she is human. [/quote]
I’m afraid it really is a crazy notion to me. History tends to show us otherwise. Slavery in ancient times wasn’t just the preserve of “powerful” people, it was quite a middle class pursuit too. Lots of people of different means had slaves. So either it wasn’t considered immoral then, or the universal moral laws were in hiding or retreat. If something is to be that self evident as being a universal law, surely it defeats the object that no one can recognize it at all times?[/quote]
Why does man have to follow the moral law? We still have free will. Just because it is there doesn’t mean people will instantly choose to follow it. Given the economic advantages, and the social acceptance, the temptation to follow could out weight any guilt.
Sorry for any spelling issues.[/quote]
I’m saying they had no guilt at all. Zero. We’re projecting our current values back in time. There was no question of morality or immorality then in this particular issue (slavery), by and large.
See my point? Now that is if you’re arguing that morality stands aside and apart from a morality giving god/s and requires nothing to exist other than itself and that it stands independently of us .
Once you bring a deity in I can fully accept that rational absolutism could be the order of the day. No deity? Relativism it is.
[/quote]
Really, so it’s acceptable to abuse, mistreat, beat, malign, and devalue other human beings just because others think it’s ok? Relative to whom, the victims or the perpetrators? Why don’t the victims matter in the scheme? Are they not good enough to matter? Have they no value to you?
So whose values count in a relative system? The slave owner or the slave?[/quote]
Did I at any point point say anything of the sort? Do me a favour and don’t put words in my mouth. AT THAT POINT IN TIME TO THOSE LIVING THEN, THEY CERTAINLY DID NOT HAVE VALUE. Prove otherwise. Where was this universal law THEN to protect the oppressed way back then? Surely if it exists it was recognized back then? Where was it?
[/quote]
Are you saying that human beings did not have value because other human beings deemed it so? Do you not see the problem there? Just because somebody decides you don’t have value, doesn’t make you valueless. It’s not their call. That’s the point. It doesn’t matter what they thought, it was still wrong. It was still immoral to do.
I am not talking about the merits of either system either. I am saying one does not exist and you cannot make a case where it does. You can make the case that many, many, many peoples and generations and societies acted unjustly to other humans, but you cannot prove it was moral because they did not recognize it wasn’t. Moral relativism requires making horrific acts against other humans a moral tenet because people or peoples thought it was ok to do. That’s not going to fly, rape is still rape, murder is still murder, doing harm to other sentient beings is still doing harm. Who likes it and who doesn’t is irrelevant to that fact.
Feel free to point the strawman out. You’re the one who brought in deities I am speaking of morality as it’s own independent entity, not talking about it’s source.
If you are trying to make that point that morality is something other than a man made apparatus designed to create guilt (another man made apparatus) then you should never bring religion into the conversation.
[/quote]
I never said it was designed to create guilt. You cannot ‘create’ guilt, you can only experience it, secondly, and I never brought religion into the conversation. If anything I avoided it at all costs because it’s not necessary to the discussion. You must be mixing up posts.
Dude what ever drugs you take, they are scrambling your brain. You are all over the map. how in the fuck did you get from Hitler thinking he was moral, to being a Christian of “some sort” then to being some what religious. Do you think before you type?
As far as what Hitler thought, it doesn’t really matter one hardy fuck what hitler thought, what he did was an abomination and exceedingly immoral. Do you not agree, or do you put what Hitler thought over those of his victims? Because the Hitler was the executioner of his own actions, does his will automatically supersede those of the people he murdered, tortured and oppressed?
Oh I know this shit totally went over your head.
What in the hardy hell are you talking about now? Introducing about 10,000 Red Herrings into the conversation does not prove that morality is a man made construct, nor that it’s relative. Brian I don’t mean this as insulting, but I don’t think you have actually given this a moments thought.
There is something called logic and reason that is designed to guide us in these discussions. Abandoning that completely is going absolutely no where. I have seldom run across thought patterns as fractured as this. Hell, I never even introduced religion into the conversation, you just did, I did not.
The point is, to get to the truth, you have to get past what people ‘think’ and drill down on what things actually are. THEN you can determine the morality of the action. Misunderstanding affects culpability, but it does not remove it completely.
You are very confused. That which is socially acceptable may or may not be moral. Social acceptability does not dictate morality. If it did, then slavery would have been moral. Sex slavery today is moral, killing people not like you would be moral. The point is, it’s not. Doesn’t matter what everybody thinks, it only matters what things are. Can you tell the difference.
How much shit do you want to drag into one conversation? Why are you passing political judgments on me, in the scope of a conversation where the topic is whether or not morality is relative or a static entity. You are as lost as lost can be.
You’re one of these surface thinkers. Do you understand what it is to take a single topic, drill down on the one single topic and hash out the truth from the fiction about that single topic? The topic is moral relativity. It’s ok to bring in examples to prove your point but to throw in everything to see if anything sticks is not going to work. Again, logic needs to drive this process. There is a complete absence of logic in your posts. None, zeta, nada, zero.
First I never said you thought morality was designed to create guilt, I actually said if you are trying to prove anything OTHER than that, you should leave religion out of the calculation.
As far as the rest, I am of the belief that you have either moral absolutism (or some farmclub of that belief), moral relativism (or again its minor league affiliates) or something more like the belief that morals are not anything but a man made construct designed to make us all better neighbors and co-workers (pretty much what I believe).
Your belief that there are “universal truths” regarding morality is only relative to you and yours, which means that they are not “universal”, labeling an action as immoral is limited to people that have the same beliefs as you. I’m not sure how this is so hard to understand for you, cultural morality is by its’ very nature unfit for universal consumption, I brought up Hitler and all the rest because if you look at the past it dictates the present. For example, if Hitler had won and somehow gained control of the world and eradicated all the Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Gays etc, we would have a different idea of morality wouldn’t we? In a world run by Nazis’ the presiding morality would be formed by the winners, three or four generations after the war we wouldn’t even question the way things are, we would all accept it as the “right way” to live. You will of course deny this and say that you would hold on to your innate moral guidelines, but you would of course be full of shit because you would be born in a world where the cultural norm is whatever the fuck the Nazis’ were selling. Again, imagine the US if the South had won the Civil War, not pretty is it? We are who we are because of where we are, not just because we are human beings, our culture shapes our beliefs.[/quote]
I think this topic is way over your head apparently. The whole point of the discussion, is to prove that despite what people think, good and evil still exist. If everybody agrees with evil behavior that doesn’t make that behavior good, it makes it acceptable, which is not the same thing. You want proof? Look at the victims. Even if the whole world thought it was a good idea to kill all the Jews, the Jews wouldn’t think so. Why should the value of their own lives matter less than that of the greater society?
Relativism devalues some people and elevates others when it truth, people’s intrinsic value is the same.
I am really afraid you don’t understand this subject matter at all in any detail what so ever. It’s really not hard. Focus on on thing and not a million things at a time, and then it gets much clearer. Why should what people think devalue the experience of other humans? That’s relativism. It has no value what so ever. It’s moving target with no meaning.
They felt no guilt as per CB’s post that would goad them into a more correct course of action as we would see it.[/quote]
Do you believe they were guilty, though?
[/quote]
Do I believe slavery is wrong , completely and without reserve? Yes.
To me, was it wrong back then too? Yes.
But that is my current prism providing a judgement looking backwards. Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
But it doesn’t matter what we thought of it, it’s still wrong. That’s the point. It doesn’t matter that you think it’s wrong now, the point is that it was and is wrong despite what you think.
There is reality and then there is what people think. The prior is often waaaaay different than the latter.
They felt no guilt as per CB’s post that would goad them into a more correct course of action as we would see it.[/quote]
Do you believe they were guilty, though?
[/quote]
Do I believe slavery is wrong , completely and without reserve? Yes.
To me, was it wrong back then too? Yes.
But that is my current prism providing a judgement looking backwards. Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
But it doesn’t matter what we thought of it, it’s still wrong. That’s the point. It doesn’t matter that you think it’s wrong now, the point is that it was and is wrong despite what you think.
There is reality and then there is what people think. The prior is often waaaaay different than the latter.[/quote]
I get what you’re saying, I just disagree as far as the existence of morality as a free standing entity goes. It’s that simple. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying I don’t think or see it the same way.
They felt no guilt as per CB’s post that would goad them into a more correct course of action as we would see it.[/quote]
Do you believe they were guilty, though?
[/quote]
Do I believe slavery is wrong , completely and without reserve? Yes.
To me, was it wrong back then too? Yes.
But that is my current prism providing a judgement looking backwards. Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
But it doesn’t matter what we thought of it, it’s still wrong. That’s the point. It doesn’t matter that you think it’s wrong now, the point is that it was and is wrong despite what you think.
There is reality and then there is what people think. The prior is often waaaaay different than the latter.[/quote]
I get what you’re saying, I just disagree as far as the existence of morality as a free standing entity goes. It’s that simple. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying I don’t think or see it the same way.
[/quote]
Morality, or “right” is the nature and character of the creator God as He has Himself graciously revealed in the collection of ancient books known as the Christian scriptures. Conversely, “sin” or immorality (wrong) is any want of conformity to same. We used to believe this as a nation. They are most damnable of all who insolently dare to take the holy name of the spotless Lamb of God upon their lips while declaring anything less.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Morality, or “right” is the nature and character of the creator God as He has Himself graciously revealed in the collection of ancient books known as the Christian scriptures. Conversely, “sin” or immorality (wrong) is any want of conformity to same. We used to believe this as a nation. They are most damnable of all who insolently dare to take the holy name of the spotless Lamb of God upon their lips while declaring anything less.[/quote]
If we cannot objectively know that two pairs make four, surely we cannot know that what you’ve written here is true. So why believe it?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Morality, or “right” is the nature and character of the creator God as He has Himself graciously revealed in the collection of ancient books known as the Christian scriptures. Conversely, “sin” or immorality (wrong) is any want of conformity to same. We used to believe this as a nation. They are most damnable of all who insolently dare to take the holy name of the spotless Lamb of God upon their lips while declaring anything less.[/quote]
If we cannot objectively know that two pairs make four, surely we cannot know that what you’ve written here is true. So why believe it?[/quote]
This is why I think it’s important to uncouple things and look at them individually. How do we know that what ‘X’ says about something is true? Look that the thing itself. Examine and study it independently, then look at what is said about it, that’s how you figure out if it’s true or not.
I have long believed that religious tenets should also be true secularly. And they are if you look in to the core of both.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Morality, or “right” is the nature and character of the creator God as He has Himself graciously revealed in the collection of ancient books known as the Christian scriptures. Conversely, “sin” or immorality (wrong) is any want of conformity to same. We used to believe this as a nation. They are most damnable of all who insolently dare to take the holy name of the spotless Lamb of God upon their lips while declaring anything less.[/quote]
If we cannot objectively know that two pairs make four, surely we cannot know that what you’ve written here is true. So why believe it?[/quote]You already know it’s true. You have no choice and you’ll spend every calorie of your life calmly attempting to convince yourself it’s not. That’s what the bible teaches and I see it all day every day. I have explained this in great detail in other threads. Try this: http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/why_I_believe_cvt.html
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Morality, or “right” is the nature and character of the creator God as He has Himself graciously revealed in the collection of ancient books known as the Christian scriptures. Conversely, “sin” or immorality (wrong) is any want of conformity to same. We used to believe this as a nation. They are most damnable of all who insolently dare to take the holy name of the spotless Lamb of God upon their lips while declaring anything less.[/quote]
If we cannot objectively know that two pairs make four, surely we cannot know that what you’ve written here is true. So why believe it?[/quote]You already know it’s true. You have no choice and you’ll spend every calorie of your life calming attempting to convince yourself it’s not. That’s what the bible teaches and I see it all day every day. I have explained this in great detail in other threads. Try this: http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/why_I_believe_cvt.html
[/quote]
This is where your argument breaks down and your (otherwise impressive) powers of argument and persuasion come to naught. I ask why I should believe in the Bible and you give me a couple recycled lines about me already knowing it’s true and then you cite the Bible as evidence.
I know you know why that kind of logic is unacceptable. The Bible is true because the Bible says so.
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< This is where your argument breaks down and your (otherwise impressive) powers of argument and persuasion come to naught. I ask why I should believe in the Bible and you give me a couple recycled lines about me already knowing it’s true and then you cite the Bible as evidence.
I know you know why that kind of logic is unacceptable. The Bible is true because the Bible says so.[/quote]This is a couple years old now and I put it there because it was easier and quicker than isolating it here right now. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/index4.html