I'm pretty defiant to authority and obstinate when it comes to thinking I'm doing the right thing. So, I would resist the evil Maker and do what I think was right, regardless of threats of torture from the Maker or his minions..Your choice of course. But not a rational one. You probably don't like Donald Trump being President. But you're not going to try to assassinate him, because you don't want Seal team helicopters landing on your roof. But you would supposedly thumb your nose at a creator of all reality and pay the price of an eternity in hell. You're not only not rational, you're not honest either. The theist position is essentially rational. Whatever one thinks the fundamental nature of reality might be, the rational thing to do is worship it. That's something we have control over. Wow, you are worse off than I thought. You have completely bought into Pascal's Wager. You don't care that there is no evidence for the threat, you'll just give into it. So, if you lived in Afghanistan, you'd make your wife wear a burka I suppose. I didn't mention it before, but part of being defiant is that I hope that my defiance could make a difference. If I can judge this Maker character and reasonably determine it is not moral, then it is also possible that it is not the most powerful being, or even if it is, it is possible that it's powers could be usurped by enough "good" beings working together. What you call the theist being rational, I call being weak and giving into a bully, and not thinking for yourself, and just plain lazy for not even considering that there might be a better way.
Jesus Christ is the Firstborn from the dead, because He is the First to participate in the final, general resurrection from the dead, which remains future for the rest of us, but He has already risen from the dead; He did it First. The other resurrections you've all suggested are not the same. We don't even have to believe the other resurrections are nonfiction; we just have to believe that the Lord's RESURRECTION is nonfiction.Even if you can show the resurrection did happen ( even though you can't) but if you could, you cannot tell us how it happened
Ah, a nihilist! While it's true that morality is a made up concept, I don't think it's a question of moral relativism. That would imply that morals are completely random. Society does by and large come to a certain consensus about what is moral behavior and what isn't.I'm a Christian, not a nihilist. I am unaware that moral relativism implies randomness. Society coming to consensus about morals is moral relativism. At least, that's what I meant by moral relativism. If that's improper definition, mea culpa.I beg your pardon. I wasn't trying to put you in a category, I was just trying to figure out why you decided to chose that particular screen name. Okay, we're on the same page as far as society's consensus on what morality means. To me, "moral relativism" means something a little different. If, for example, a group of people in the next town decided that slavery was okay and that murder was okay, then we would be have no cause to say that they were wrong. Their consensus is just their consensus, just as morally right as ours is. In other words, morality is relative. But that's not true. Once we decide upon a consensus, it becomes the standard by which we judge all such cultures, not just our own.
There are some terrifically horrific crimes that people have done, and censored, they deserve to be tortured. If you disagree, then I disagree over-the-top-all-in, because sometimes people have done some terrible, terrible things. It's not right to not torture these most awful of capital criminals.This is just my personal feeling, but if a person is going to be executed, it makes no sense to torture him, too. Why? To discourage other people from doing it? But the sort of crimes you're talking about -- raping and murdering babies, for example -- are such horrible things that no person it his right mind would do them anyway. Surely anybody who is driven to commit crimes like that does not even consider the possibility that he'll be caught. So the torture is just personal revenge, and way to make that person suffer the way he made his victims suffer. If you really have the spirit of forgiveness in you, why would you wish to do that? In any case, the State's purpose is not revenge; it is Justice. That's the way I feel, at least.
There are a few versions of this out there. ]
I had to listen to it 2 or 3 times to really get it, so, give it some time. Think it over. Love to hear your comments. It’s only half an hour.
Jesus Christ is the Firstborn from the dead, because He is the First to participate in the final, general resurrection from the dead, which remains future for the rest of us, but He has already risen from the dead; He did it First. The other resurrections you've all suggested are not the same. We don't even have to believe the other resurrections are nonfiction; we just have to believe that the Lord's RESURRECTION is nonfiction.Even if you can show the resurrection did happen ( even though you can't) but if you could, you cannot tell us how it happenedOh.
I beg your pardon. I wasn't trying to put you in a category, I was just trying to figure out why you decided to chose that particular screen name.It's been my screen name on various discussion boards since the late 1990s is all.
Okay, we're on the same page as far as society's consensus on what morality means. To me, "moral relativism" means something a little different. If, for example, a group of people in the next town decided that slavery was okay and that murder was okay, then we would be have no cause to say that they were wrong. Their consensus is just their consensus, just as morally right as ours is. In other words, morality is relative. But that's not true. Once we decide upon a consensus, it becomes the standard by which we judge all such cultures, not just our own.And that's what I meant by moral relativism, because it's based upon public opinion and not upon some objective standard. For millennia, slavery wasn't considered immoral at all, and now it is.
@Advocatus:
The coup de grace was only granted upon the capital criminals’ confession and repentance of their heinous crimes; now, we grant it immediately, unless we grant an even more outrageous mercy like incarceration for life, with the public paying to sustain the lives of capital criminals—paid for in part by their victims’ own families through taxation. So instead of penalizing the criminals, we are penalizing the victims and their families and friends. That is only right if we are deliberately engaged in a campaign of mercy, and that is my overall point wrt to torture; we should acknowledge that these worst of capital criminals deserve prolonged, protracted, deliberate torture before we ultimately kill them, and that anything less is what we mean by “mercy.”
That is my personal feeling.
And that's what I meant by moral relativism, because it's based upon public opinion and not upon some objective standard. For millennia, slavery wasn't considered immoral at all, and now it is.Not sure about having a conversation with someone who advocates torture, but here we are. The slavery example seems like a strange one to pick. The Bible advocates slavery, and some brutal examples of it, not just the "indentured servitude" kind. There is almost no change in that with the New Testament. Paul says something about masters treating their slaves well. Modern slavery, the kind practiced after the 14th century, was some of the worst. The anti-slavery movement seems to have started somewhere in Germany with the Mennonites, who did use Christian morality in their argument, but by time that argument got to America, you could see both sides using the Bible to make their case. So where is this objective standard? If the Bible can't get slavery right, how can we use it as a source? Exodus 20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
And that's what I meant by moral relativism, because it's based upon public opinion and not upon some objective standard. For millennia, slavery wasn't considered immoral at all, and now it is.Not sure about having a conversation with someone who advocates torture, but here we are.I'm not advocating for it; just that we acknowledge that certain capital crimes deserve it, and hard. If we're going to continue to show inestimable mercy to these horrible people, then let's acknowledge it. And furthermore, let's explicate just what it is that we're trying to accomplish in showing such mercy to people who clearly don't deserve it.
The slavery example seems like a strange one to pick. The Bible advocates slavery, and some brutal examples of it, not just the "indentured servitude" kind. There is almost no change in that with the New Testament. Paul says something about masters treating their slaves well. Modern slavery, the kind practiced after the 14th century, was some of the worst. The anti-slavery movement seems to have started somewhere in Germany with the Mennonites, who did use Christian morality in their argument, but by time that argument got to America, you could see both sides using the Bible to make their case. So where is this objective standard? If the Bible can't get slavery right, how can we use it as a source? Exodus 20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.Someone else brought up slavery, not me. Ask them. The Catholic Church today teaches that it is immoral.
Someone else brought up slavery, not me. Ask them. The Catholic Church today teaches that it is immoral.You're a slippery one aren't you? What did you mean when you said this?
And that’s what I meant by moral relativism, because it’s based upon public opinion and not upon some objective standard. For millennia, slavery wasn’t considered immoral at all, and now it is.I'm trying to understand how this "objective standard" works. How do we use the Bible to understand "mercy"? Or to know how to treat our fellow humans?
Someone else brought up slavery, not me. Ask them. The Catholic Church today teaches that it is immoral.You're a slippery one aren't you? What did you mean when you said this?
And that’s what I meant by moral relativism, because it’s based upon public opinion and not upon some objective standard. For millennia, slavery wasn’t considered immoral at all, and now it is.I'm trying to understand how this "objective standard" works. How do we use the Bible to understand "mercy"? Or to know how to treat our fellow humans?Who said the Bible is the objective standard? Not me. The objective standard of morality for me is the teachings of the Catholic Church on the matter of morals, as found in and completely contained within the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And I'm not Catholic. * Advocatus brought up slavery.
Someone else brought up slavery, not me. Ask them. The Catholic Church today teaches that it is immoral.You're a slippery one aren't you? What did you mean when you said this?
And that’s what I meant by moral relativism, because it’s based upon public opinion and not upon some objective standard. For millennia, slavery wasn’t considered immoral at all, and now it is.I'm trying to understand how this "objective standard" works. How do we use the Bible to understand "mercy"? Or to know how to treat our fellow humans? I am trying to understand how the bible can be considered objective to begin with. The sanctity of life is a human invention. Everything that has ever lived is dead, everything that lives today will die. It is the living who consider life to be sacred and therefore murder (without justifiable cause) is wrong.
Someone else brought up slavery, not me. Ask them. The Catholic Church today teaches that it is immoral.You're a slippery one aren't you? What did you mean when you said this?
And that’s what I meant by moral relativism, because it’s based upon public opinion and not upon some objective standard. For millennia, slavery wasn’t considered immoral at all, and now it is.I'm trying to understand how this "objective standard" works. How do we use the Bible to understand "mercy"? Or to know how to treat our fellow humans? I am trying to understand how the bible can be considered objective to begin with. The sanctity of life is a human invention. Everything that has ever lived is dead, everything that lives today will die. It is the living who consider life to be sacred and therefore murder (without justifiable cause) is wrong.Killing without justifiable cause is murder. Murder with justifiable cause is not murder.
Who said the Bible is the objective standard? Not me. The objective standard of morality for me is the teachings of the Catholic Church on the matter of morals, as found in and completely contained within the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And I'm not Catholic. * Advocatus brought up slavery.Okay, that's different. Never seen anyone do that before. I just assumed Catholic comes from Bible, so the two are inseparable. The question is the same though. Origen wrote some things against slavery, but was never given sainthood. On the other hand you have Dum Diversas. The Catholic church is just as morally relative as the Bible, so my question is the same. Are you avoiding it? Or are you saying that it's okay for the Catholic Church to change what it says is moral? How does this objective standard work?
Who said the Bible is the objective standard? Not me. The objective standard of morality for me is the teachings of the Catholic Church on the matter of morals, as found in and completely contained within the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And I'm not Catholic. * Advocatus brought up slavery.Okay, that's different. Never seen anyone do that before. I just assumed Catholic comes from Bible, so the two are inseparable.Internal to Catholicism, they are inseparable, as the Church herself defines these terms.
The question is the same though. Origen wrote some things against slavery, but was never given sainthood. On the other hand you have Dum Diversas. The Catholic church is just as morally relative as the Bible, so my question is the same. Are you avoiding it? Or are you saying that it's okay for the Catholic Church to change what it says is moral? How does this objective standard work?Because I believe in the RESURRECTION, I am justified in believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and furthermore that He founded the Catholic Church, and furthermore that His Church is, according to the Christian Bible, the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1st Timothy 3:15, KJV/AV). Corresponding to this scripture, the Catholic Church herself claims infallibility in teaching on the matters of faith and morals. Murder is a moral matter. The Church says murder is immoral, and gravely so.
So this is completely arbitrary. You expressed a problem with groups of people changing morality, but you have no problem with the church changing, because RESSURECTION. Okay then
So this is completely arbitrary. You expressed a problem with groups of people changing morality, but you have no problem with the church changing, because RESSURECTION. Okay thenIn every cartoon Wiley Coyote is always killed, but hey, in the next cartoon he is back alive and well. Must be Resurrection. In fact it has a moral message, that even if Wiley Coyote is the "bad guy", always trying to catch the Road Runner, it shows that resurrection is not a result of living a moral life.
So this is completely arbitrary.No.
You expressed a problem with groups of people changing morality, but you have no problem with the church changing, because RESSURECTION.I don't accept any moral authority that is not God Himself, because nobody else is in a position to be judging what is and what is not moral. Even wrt murder. Plus, show where the Church ever taught that murder was anything other than gravely immoral? You can use either the Catholic Church's own ex cathedra official teachings on the matter, or right from the Christian Bible if you'd prefer. I'll wait.
Okay thenIndeed.
Plus, show where the Church ever taught that murder was anything other than gravely immoral?Bula de Cruzada