steveorino 7 #226 December 1, 2006 You guys think because "Christians", or anyone else for that matter, treat absolute truths as subjective truths, that somehow that makes it not an absolute truth. I simply disagree with you. What Hitler did was "absolutely" wrong, not relatively wrong. BTW, I never said Christianity leads to objective morality. I simply stated I believe there is an objective morality. BIG difference! steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #227 December 1, 2006 So there is an objective morality, but Christians disagrees on what it is? Perhaps only you know what it is? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #228 December 1, 2006 QuoteSo there is an objective morality, but Christians disagrees on what it is? That is correct, as do Muslims, Jews, etc. QuotePerhaps only you know what it is? I have my opinion. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #229 December 1, 2006 If there is widespread disagreement then how is it objective morality? Or morevoer any more objective than any other moral system? If Christians, inspired by Christianity can commit such crimes such as slavery, the holcaust etc whilst other Christians opposed them then clearly Christianity does not lead to any objective morality. all texts are subject to subjective interpretation and the bible is no different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #230 December 1, 2006 QuoteIf there is widespread disagreement then how is it objective morality? Or morevoer any more objective than any other moral system? If Christians, inspired by Christianity can commit such crimes such as slavery, the holcaust etc whilst other Christians opposed them then clearly Christianity does not lead to any objective morality. all texts are subject to subjective interpretation and the bible is no different. Objective morals would be objective because they come God, not humans. I never said Christianity "leads the way" What are you debating? I think there are objective morals. That is all I have said. Perhaps, you like Bill think not. That is okay with me, but if you believe that that you will be on a slippery slope IMHO, because how can you say anything is wrong? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #231 December 1, 2006 Well in the bible god commands the Hebrew armies to commit genocide so then you must agree that genocide is not "objectivley" wrong. If not then god must have acted wrongly. "I think there are objective morals. That is all I have said. Perhaps, you like Bill think not. That is okay with me, but if you believe that that you will be on a slippery slope IMHO, because how can you say anything is wrong? " Just because I accept somehting is subjective doesnt mean I cant make a statement aboutit. I can say genocide is wrong in the same way i can say Jaws is better than Jaws 4 The Revenge or Phanton Menace is inferior to Empire strikes Back. Where's the slippery slope? I am confident in both opinions but i recognise the possibility others will disagree with me. that recognition is admitting the reality of the world , that morality is subjective. But that subjectivity doesnt mean one cannot have an opinion, perhaps one strong enough to fight for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #232 December 1, 2006 I agree we can all have opinions about what is subjective. If I steal from you and you say it is wrong ... why? Your subjective morality may think so, but that would only be your opinion. It would not be "absolutely" wrong according to your theory. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #233 December 1, 2006 QuoteWell in the bible god commands the Hebrew armies to commit genocide so then you must agree that genocide is not "objectivley" wrong. If not then god must have acted wrongly. . OR you can believe the Bible as History tells us how the Jews saw thier past. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #234 December 1, 2006 >What Hitler did was "absolutely" wrong, not relatively wrong. OK. How about the US's use of nuclear weapons against civilians in WWII? The firebombing of Dresden? The Crusades? The killing of innocent civilians in Iraq? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #235 December 1, 2006 >I think there are objective morals. That is all I have said. Perhaps, you like Bill think not. As I have said in the past, I think there ARE absolute, objective morals that come from our basic evolutionary drives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #236 December 1, 2006 Quote>What Hitler did was "absolutely" wrong, not relatively wrong. OK. How about the US's use of nuclear weapons against civilians in WWII? The firebombing of Dresden? The Crusades? The killing of innocent civilians in Iraq? wrong This world is hopelessly lost without a savior. We can justify killing it just about any name ... justice, war, choice, etc. So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! Romans 7:21-25 steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #237 December 1, 2006 Before we discuss stealing let us agree on a definition. I would define it as taking of someones property wihtout their consent. Would you agree? You comment on how the Jews see their history, I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you are getting at. My opinion being raised as a jew is that most Jews dont read the bits of the Torah they dont like , they're probably unaware such genocides were commanded. They go to Synagogue, the Rabbi sings in Hebrew and they try and follow along. He doesnt usually sing the passages that say wipe everyone last man, woman, child and ox out. even the Jews with good hebrew can translate it after a bit of work and certianly not fast enough tokeep up with what the Rabbi sings. That is only my experience of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #238 December 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteBefore we discuss stealing let us agree on a definition. I would define it as taking of someones property wihtout their consent. Would you agree? Yes QuoteYou comment on how the Jews see their history, I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you are getting at. My opinion being raised as a jew is that most Jews dont read the bits of the Torah they dont like , they're probably unaware such genocides were commanded. They go to Synagogue, the Rabbi sings in Hebrew and they try and follow along. He doesnt usually sing the passages that say wipe everyone last man, woman, child and ox out. even the Jews with good hebrew can translate it after a bit of work and certianly not fast enough tokeep up with what the Rabbi sings. That is only my experience of course. I don't see the Bible as a History book. It has personal and cultural loyalties written it. I see it as an instrument to point us to Christ. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #239 December 1, 2006 Since you agree with my defintion of stealing. You must agree that taxation is wrong as it is the compulsory taking of a persons income from the government, the tax payer has no option to say no. This is then objectivley wrong in your book and all taxation should be abolished immediatley. Now some people might agree with this, most wont. the point is it is a subjective decision, as are all moral decisions. Just because a decision is subjective though does not mean it cant be made and agree on by most people. Your point about the bible not being seen as a history book. I dont get your argument at all, I'm sorry. I dont se it matters to our argument which I will restate in order to give you the oppurtunity to asnwer it clearly. 1 Is genocide part of your ojectvie morality? 2 If so I presume you oppose it, in which case do you condenm god when he orders the Hebrew armies to commit genocide ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #240 December 1, 2006 As far as taxation. I get something for the taxes (schools, roads, law enforcement, etc.) So it would not fall into the category of stealing per say, Although SOME taxes are close to stealing. :) steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #241 December 1, 2006 i thought we agreed that the deifnition was taking somehting without their consent, I dont think what the thief spends the money on was part of our agreed definition. Certainly the bible says dont steal, not dont steal unless its for a good casue or unless its to give somethign back to your victim. I think you can see morality is not so objective as it might first seem. if you could answer my second point it owuld be appreciated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #242 December 1, 2006 I see taxation and stealing as apples and oranges. Sorry, you can't see that. I answered your point #2 here and a PM. It is not my fault you don't get it. Only so many ways I can say it. EDITED TO ADD: I never said ALL morality is objective, did I? I BELIEVE I said some morals are objective. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #243 December 1, 2006 Sorry I ddint notice the private message, I have read it now. Might be easier if you can post responses on the forum, thanks. In the bible god commands the Hebrew armies to comiit genocide, Forgive me if I misundersant your argument are you suggesting that the Hebrew authors of the bible are lying when they say it was god who commaded this and many other similar acts. If the bible contains this lie what else might it be lying about? Lets take the example of the flood, god commits genocide there, was he justified? Im sure you think he was in which case genocide is justified in at leats one instance. On the taxation front, not sure what aplles and oranges means in reality. Certainly taxation conforms to the defintion of stealing we agreed to. may philosophers eg Harvard robert Nozik have described taxation as theft. It may be a necessary theft but it perfectly conforms to the definition of theft we agreed upon. But here we see most pople will accept that it is not an immoral theft, but some anarachists would not agree. You can see here as everywhere morality is subjective. BTW I have to go to my yoga class, enjoy the rest of you day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #244 December 1, 2006 QuoteAs far as taxation. I get something for the taxes (schools, roads, law enforcement, etc.) So it would not fall into the category of stealing per say, Although SOME taxes are close to stealing. :) "Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo”) (Matthew 22:21). See also Luke 3:12-13... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #245 December 1, 2006 QuoteI think there are objective morals. That is all I have said. Perhaps you, like Bill, think not. That is okay with me, but if you believe that then you will be on a slippery slope IMHO, because how can you say anything is wrong? By gum, I think we're getting somewhere! I have absolutely no problem feeling that something is wrong (or right) and saying so without the comfort of having convinced myself that such a feeling is in line with a higher authority. Some people would have a problem with doing so, and while that's kinda strange to me, hey, what are you gonna do? For example, I'm making up my end of this discussion as I go along. I have absolutely no idea if it falls in line with anyone else's higher authority, or even if anyone that feels the same way has written a book about it. What can I say? I feel like I'm right! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #246 December 1, 2006 >wrong I agree, actually. >We can justify killing it just about any name ... justice, war, choice, etc. Indeed we can - and indeed a lot of christians do justify it many ways, because not killing an enemy is not a universal (or "absolute") moral. Indeed, the Bible gives plenty examples of how to kill, so clearly it's not proscribed by the christian faith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #247 December 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteAs far as taxation. I get something for the taxes (schools, roads, law enforcement, etc.) So it would not fall into the category of stealing per say, Although SOME taxes are close to stealing. :) "Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo”) (Matthew 22:21). See also Luke 3:12-13 Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar; unto God what is God's steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #248 December 1, 2006 Quote>wrong I agree, actually. >We can justify killing it just about any name ... justice, war, choice, etc. Indeed we can - and indeed a lot of christians do justify it many ways, because not killing an enemy is not a universal (or "absolute") moral. Indeed, the Bible gives plenty examples of how to kill, so clearly it's not proscribed by the christian faith. Does Jesus prescribe killing? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #249 December 1, 2006 >Does Jesus prescribe killing? Prescribe or proscribe? They're sorta antonyms. My interpretation of his teaching is that Jesus does not condone violence, but the bible does not support my interpretation. (Luke 19:27 for example.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #250 December 1, 2006 Quote>Does Jesus prescribe killing? Prescribe or proscribe? They're sorta antonyms. My interpretation of his teaching is that Jesus does not condone violence, but the bible does not support my interpretation. (Luke 19:27 for example.) Geesh! Another person who cannot tell the difference between a parable and a command ... steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next Page 10 of 15 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
philh 0 #239 December 1, 2006 Since you agree with my defintion of stealing. You must agree that taxation is wrong as it is the compulsory taking of a persons income from the government, the tax payer has no option to say no. This is then objectivley wrong in your book and all taxation should be abolished immediatley. Now some people might agree with this, most wont. the point is it is a subjective decision, as are all moral decisions. Just because a decision is subjective though does not mean it cant be made and agree on by most people. Your point about the bible not being seen as a history book. I dont get your argument at all, I'm sorry. I dont se it matters to our argument which I will restate in order to give you the oppurtunity to asnwer it clearly. 1 Is genocide part of your ojectvie morality? 2 If so I presume you oppose it, in which case do you condenm god when he orders the Hebrew armies to commit genocide ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #240 December 1, 2006 As far as taxation. I get something for the taxes (schools, roads, law enforcement, etc.) So it would not fall into the category of stealing per say, Although SOME taxes are close to stealing. :) steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #241 December 1, 2006 i thought we agreed that the deifnition was taking somehting without their consent, I dont think what the thief spends the money on was part of our agreed definition. Certainly the bible says dont steal, not dont steal unless its for a good casue or unless its to give somethign back to your victim. I think you can see morality is not so objective as it might first seem. if you could answer my second point it owuld be appreciated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #242 December 1, 2006 I see taxation and stealing as apples and oranges. Sorry, you can't see that. I answered your point #2 here and a PM. It is not my fault you don't get it. Only so many ways I can say it. EDITED TO ADD: I never said ALL morality is objective, did I? I BELIEVE I said some morals are objective. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #243 December 1, 2006 Sorry I ddint notice the private message, I have read it now. Might be easier if you can post responses on the forum, thanks. In the bible god commands the Hebrew armies to comiit genocide, Forgive me if I misundersant your argument are you suggesting that the Hebrew authors of the bible are lying when they say it was god who commaded this and many other similar acts. If the bible contains this lie what else might it be lying about? Lets take the example of the flood, god commits genocide there, was he justified? Im sure you think he was in which case genocide is justified in at leats one instance. On the taxation front, not sure what aplles and oranges means in reality. Certainly taxation conforms to the defintion of stealing we agreed to. may philosophers eg Harvard robert Nozik have described taxation as theft. It may be a necessary theft but it perfectly conforms to the definition of theft we agreed upon. But here we see most pople will accept that it is not an immoral theft, but some anarachists would not agree. You can see here as everywhere morality is subjective. BTW I have to go to my yoga class, enjoy the rest of you day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #244 December 1, 2006 QuoteAs far as taxation. I get something for the taxes (schools, roads, law enforcement, etc.) So it would not fall into the category of stealing per say, Although SOME taxes are close to stealing. :) "Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo”) (Matthew 22:21). See also Luke 3:12-13... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #245 December 1, 2006 QuoteI think there are objective morals. That is all I have said. Perhaps you, like Bill, think not. That is okay with me, but if you believe that then you will be on a slippery slope IMHO, because how can you say anything is wrong? By gum, I think we're getting somewhere! I have absolutely no problem feeling that something is wrong (or right) and saying so without the comfort of having convinced myself that such a feeling is in line with a higher authority. Some people would have a problem with doing so, and while that's kinda strange to me, hey, what are you gonna do? For example, I'm making up my end of this discussion as I go along. I have absolutely no idea if it falls in line with anyone else's higher authority, or even if anyone that feels the same way has written a book about it. What can I say? I feel like I'm right! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #246 December 1, 2006 >wrong I agree, actually. >We can justify killing it just about any name ... justice, war, choice, etc. Indeed we can - and indeed a lot of christians do justify it many ways, because not killing an enemy is not a universal (or "absolute") moral. Indeed, the Bible gives plenty examples of how to kill, so clearly it's not proscribed by the christian faith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #247 December 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteAs far as taxation. I get something for the taxes (schools, roads, law enforcement, etc.) So it would not fall into the category of stealing per say, Although SOME taxes are close to stealing. :) "Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo”) (Matthew 22:21). See also Luke 3:12-13 Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar; unto God what is God's steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #248 December 1, 2006 Quote>wrong I agree, actually. >We can justify killing it just about any name ... justice, war, choice, etc. Indeed we can - and indeed a lot of christians do justify it many ways, because not killing an enemy is not a universal (or "absolute") moral. Indeed, the Bible gives plenty examples of how to kill, so clearly it's not proscribed by the christian faith. Does Jesus prescribe killing? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #249 December 1, 2006 >Does Jesus prescribe killing? Prescribe or proscribe? They're sorta antonyms. My interpretation of his teaching is that Jesus does not condone violence, but the bible does not support my interpretation. (Luke 19:27 for example.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #250 December 1, 2006 Quote>Does Jesus prescribe killing? Prescribe or proscribe? They're sorta antonyms. My interpretation of his teaching is that Jesus does not condone violence, but the bible does not support my interpretation. (Luke 19:27 for example.) Geesh! Another person who cannot tell the difference between a parable and a command ... steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
