@moonbus saidIt is a simple question are held to different standards? Some right now have calibrated the murder of some people while others call that a rejection of the value of human rights. If there are different standards are both to right at the same time, one is wrong the other right, or do you reject all standards period full stop.
There have been cultures in the past, and there are some today, which are not based on the paradigms to which you subscribe.
The concept that ethics is a set of "rules" is one such historically and culturally specific paradigm, as is the concept that people are "flawed." Not only do I not subscribe to your set of rules, specifically, neither do I subscribe to rule-based ethics generally.
I do not view people through the lens of "flawed/not-flawed."
Culture rage can start wars and genocide, so if your going to pass off individual morals off to culture that is very dangerous.
@KellyJay saidOf course there are standards. There has never been a culture or society in which there were no standards, or, if there was, it did not survive long enough to pass on its genes to a second generation.
It is a simple question are held to different standards? Some right now have calibrated the murder of some people while others call that a rejection of the value of human rights. If there are different standards are both to right at the same time, one is wrong the other right, or do you reject all standards period full stop.
Culture rage can start wars and genocide, so if your going to pass off individual morals off to culture that is very dangerous.
It is either a kind of nonsense to say "both are right", because this presupposes some normative point of view beyond all cultures, or it is merely a factual description (i.e., anthropology, not a normative judgment), roughly equivalent to "they have something they call 'money' but it isn't our dollars."
You can actually see a shift of standards in Hebrew society from the OT to the NT. Of course you know the parable of the angry mob which brings before Jesus a woman accused of adultery, fully prepared to stone her to death--the traditional (OT) standard for dealing with an unfaithful wife (unfaithful men suffered no such opprobrium). Jesus says to the lynch mob, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", and no one casts a stone. You, apparently, draw only the most superficial conclusion from this parable, namely, that "everyone is a sinner." Does no one but me notice that Jesus, who, presumably, was without sin, also cast no stone??? Jesus neither judges her nor punishes her; he admonishes her to go home and be faithful to her husband.
The conclusion I draw from this parable is that it is no one's business to punish any one else's sins, it is no one's business to prevent anyone else from sinning, it is no one's business to prohibit anyone else from sinning (for example by passing laws criminalizing homosex or abortion or gluttony or dishonoring one's parents). Your business is to live a righteous life, insofar as this is possible for you, without sinning (whatever counts as 'sin' for the culture in question) and without judging people. Judging people is God's business. That is what I draw from this parable. The incident represented a major ethical paradigm shift in the Mediterranean world at that time.
@KellyJay saidOkay so here's a question which I don't think has ever been satisfactorily answered in these forums. Your 'worldview' is seen through a prism of devout Christianity; you believe that your god created everything and therefore everybody. Ergo, according to your beliefs we are all 'god's creatures.' Given that, how do your political views become 'shaped' toward a political philosophy which discriminates between different kinds of people? Are some people more created by your god than others, or did he/she/it make a better job of it in some cases than others?
Care to be more specific about what you are referring to with 'yada yada yada'? I could say the same thing about you, and your it doesn’t mean what you think, it's only a metaphor, as you ignore things right in front of you. We all have worldviews, and for many, those shape our political views and even our understanding of science. When something doesn’t fit our worldview, ...[text shortened]... ng hate is not a part of that, and if your life is always filled with strife, you have heart issues.
To be a 'Republican Christian', particularly under the current racist, discriminatory regime which you support, seems to me and others to be a contradiction in terms; can you explain the contradiction?
@moonbus saidI think we should indeed talk more about Yorkshire Pudding. If people ate more of it, perhaps the world would be a better and happier place. Whether eaten with gravy or maple syrup, as a single mass or as individual puddings, it is surely one of the finest of foods....
I didn't ask you to repeat your oft repeated comment that you think yada yada yada. I asked WHY you feel you need to do this. Seems almost an obsession with you; you inject this same yada yada yada into nearly every thread, regardless what the OP is about. We talk about Charlie Kirk, and it's yada yada yada. We talk about any passage of the Bible, and it's yada yada yada. We ...[text shortened]... ove the tree trunk from your own eye; it's not your problem what motes the rest of have in our eyes.
@Indonesia-Phil saidYour making charges how about giving an example of I have said you find contradictory. Simply calling my beliefs names is not something I can answer since without specfics your stating your opinion nothing more.
Okay so here's a question which I don't think has ever been satisfactorily answered in these forums. Your 'worldview' is seen through a prism of devout Christianity; you believe that your god created everything and therefore everybody. Ergo, according to your beliefs we are all 'god's creatures.' Given that, how do your political views become 'shaped' toward a politica ...[text shortened]... u support, seems to me and others to be a contradiction in terms; can you explain the contradiction?
Do you think we all are held to the same standards or they be do do varied one can celibate the murder of a dad and husband while another says it’s evil, and they are both right?
@moonbus saidI didn’t ask if there were standards, but are we judged by the same ones? Are there good people and bad ones, if so how do you know which is which?
Of course there are standards. There has never been a culture or society in which there were no standards, or, if there was, it did not survive long enough to pass on its genes to a second generation.
It is either a kind of nonsense to say "both are right", because this presupposes some normative point of view beyond all cultures, or it is merely a factual description (i.e ...[text shortened]... le. The incident represented a major ethical paradigm shift in the Mediterranean world at that time.
@moonbus saidReally you don’t view them flawed not flawed so you think they are good, bad, you accept all behavior equally without distinction?
There have been cultures in the past, and there are some today, which are not based on the paradigms to which you subscribe.
The concept that ethics is a set of "rules" is one such historically and culturally specific paradigm, as is the concept that people are "flawed." Not only do I not subscribe to your set of rules, specifically, neither do I subscribe to rule-based ethics generally.
I do not view people through the lens of "flawed/not-flawed."
@KellyJay saidWhat on earth are you on about? What 'charges' have I made? What 'names' have I called your beliefs apart from Christianity? And what's all this about 'celibate' (celibate?) murdering dads and husbands?
Your making charges how about giving an example of I have said you find contradictory. Simply calling my beliefs names is not something I can answer since without specfics your stating your opinion nothing more.
Do you think we all are held to the same standards or they be do do varied one can celibate the murder of a dad and husband while another says it’s evil, and they are both right?
I asked you a simple, generic, non - specific question. If you can't answer it in any kind of a coherent way then I assume you don't have an answer. Never mind, it was worth a try.
@KellyJay said"You think there are sides and winning is the goal?"
You think there are sides and winning is the goal? By sides you mean those who think like you and those who don’t and there is a goal because your one side could be winning. What is the goal group think. The destruction of the other side. Explain winning please. That pretty much locks us all into the same game with the same rules does’t it?
Yes. Maga's vision of what america should be is repulsive
"By sides you mean those who think like you and those who don’t and there is a goal because your one side could be winning. "
One side is Maga and then there is everyone else. One could live in a country run by Reagan republicans. Even if they fuk up the economy they would still believe in democracy. Other people could regain the power. Lines were clear, we do this and that for power but nothing more.
Nothing is sacred for MAGA. So you bet your donkey there are sides
1 edit
@Zahlanzi saidSo how do you know what the good side is? I have no idea what you mean when you say “MAGA”! What points do you think I support when you are suggesting “MAGA” that are bad? What lines are you referring to, again vague accusation no specifics.
"You think there are sides and winning is the goal?"
Yes. Maga's vision of what america should be is repulsive
"By sides you mean those who think like you and those who don’t and there is a goal because your one side could be winning. "
One side is Maga and then there is everyone else. One could live in a country run by Reagan republicans. Even if they fuk up the econom ...[text shortened]... at for power but nothing more.
Nothing is sacred for MAGA. So you bet your donkey there are sides
When the right morn they don’t act out in rage so cities burn, I hope the right does not turn into what they claim to hate.
@AThousandYoung saidMurder, give a specific example!
For example Trump has called for murder on a number of occasions
@Indonesia-Phil saidMy beliefs discriminate? I believe God created people so better that others? You twist my beliefs, you cannot point to what I believe by things I have said the make those things true. Yet you say them!
Okay so here's a question which I don't think has ever been satisfactorily answered in these forums. Your 'worldview' is seen through a prism of devout Christianity; you believe that your god created everything and therefore everybody. Ergo, according to your beliefs we are all 'god's creatures.' Given that, how do your political views become 'shaped' toward a politica ...[text shortened]... u support, seems to me and others to be a contradiction in terms; can you explain the contradiction?