@no1marauder saidThe Natural Law, was created in the Hellenstic period by the Greeks, long after the events of Israel v Midianites story, and the forming of the commandments of God for the Jews. But .. imagine the Greeks who went around murdering everyone to take their land and their women, and raping them, telling people about Natural Law. And you are here 4000 years after posting up that BS.
BS. Seizing civilians under pretext of war didn't suddenly become "wrong" some recent day; it was always a grevious violation of the Natural Law.
Your omniscient God should have known that.
Presentism is a really thing. Get some help for that. Its easy though. Just tell youself you are not from that period so cut the people some slack.
1 edit
@Rajk999 saidIt wasn't created by the Greeks any more than Dalton created the atom. It's a moral code hardwired into all of us. It is not invalidated because some violate it.
The Natural Law, was created in the Hellenstic period by the Greeks, long after the events of Israel v Midianites story, and the forming of the commandments of God for the Jews. But .. imagine the Greeks who went around murdering everyone to take their land and their women, and raping them, telling people about Natural Law. And you are here 4000 years after posting up that ...[text shortened]... that. Its easy though. Just tell youself you are not from that period so cut the people some slack.
Your argument is weak and illogical. Things aren't morally right because A did or does them but morally wrong because B did or does them.
@no1marauder saidDemocritus didn’t invent the atom first.
It wasn't created by the Greeks any more than Dalton created the atom. It's a moral code hardwired into all of us. It is not invalidated because some violate it.
Your argument is weak and illogical. Things aren't morally right because A did or does them but morally wrong because B did or does them.
@no1marauder saidYou have no clue what moral code is hardwired into people. Only God knows that and God will judge people. If you are at least in your 50s or 60s which I suspect you are, you must have experienced growing up, with certain standards and morals by your parents, family or society, only to realise later on, that these same people had some pretty low morals themselves. Standards change over time even from one generation to another. You are mistaken to try to judge people thousands of years ago, by your current moral code.
It wasn't created by the Greeks any more than Dalton created the atom. It's a moral code hardwired into all of us. It is not invalidated because some violate it.
Your argument is weak and illogical. Things aren't morally right because A did or does them but morally wrong because B did or does them.
Slavery is another good example. The world in the 1500s were full of slaves, slave traders and slave owners. Its was a normal part of life, and supported by God if the slaves are well treated. It is only stupid people who suffer from 'Presentism', try to judge the world by current moral standards.
Another one that you fail at, is understanding colonialism. The world lived under colonialism up to 1945. Colonial powers acquired colonies through conquest and war. The British owned the Levant area from 1918 and were within their right to transfer ownership to whoever they pleased, and they did this with the full support of the UN. Yet you claim they had no right to do this because of self-determination, which is the moral standard of today.
Today, is your moral standard, it was not theirs 50 or more yrs ago.
2 edits
@Rajk999 saidYour criticism of what you imagine is "Presentism" is really just a form of "moral relativism" - a most curious position for someone who is constantly using moral arguments and stereotypes but only against certain groups. But I need not have been in the Wolf's Lair in the 1940s to know that the Holocaust was a moral wrong.
You have no clue what moral code is hardwired into people. Only God knows that and God will judge people. If you are at least in your 50s or 60s which I suspect you are, you must have experienced growing up, with certain standards and morals by your parents, family or society, only to realise later on, that these same people had some pretty low morals themselves. Standards ...[text shortened]... the moral standard of today.
Today, is your moral standard, it was not theirs 50 or more yrs ago.
It's much more likely that tyrants inflicting moral wrongs on others like slavery created a God who supposedly justified that practice rather than a just, moral God would command peoples to engage in it and also child murder and forced marriage and rape.
You seem to think that the practices of tyrants, dictators and kings establish a "moral standard". I most certainly do not agree.
I won't bother to correct again your historically grossly inaccurate description of Middle East history as it is obviously a waste of time. I wonder, however, if you could give any examples of the victims of colonizations accepting it as morally just; you are, as usual, merely parroting Western biases that you were undoubtedly spoon fed since childhood (as was I, but I have put such childish ideas behind me). It seems to be a historical fact that almost all ousters of colonial regimes was greeted with great happiness and relief by those who were in the "colonies".
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou are not capable of fair and honest discussions ..
Your criticism of what you imagine is "Presentism" is really just a form of "moral relativism" - a most curious position for someone who is constantly using moral arguments and stereotypes but only against certain groups. But I need not have been in the Wolf's Lair in the 1940s to know that the Holocaust was a moral wrong.
It's much more likely that tyrants inflicting ...[text shortened]... of colonial regimes was greeted with great happiness and relief by those who were in the "colonies".
- I never said that the Holocaust was morally right at that time.
- Please say what you mean by ..moral arguments and stereotypes but only against certain groups.
Actually it is not about morally right or wrong. It is about what is acceptable in different eras of world history, because this has changed in every century and it is pointless claiming that country x was wrong because we find it wrong now. The holocaust was out of place in the 20th Century and would probably have fitted in well in the time of Genghis Khan. Colonisation was rampant in the early 20th century when the British expanded their empire after beating the Ottoman Empire. In that time most of Africa was colonised by one European empire or another .. referred to as The Scramble for Africa". To claim that the British were wrong to colonize MidEast territory in 1918 because of the principle of self-determination which only got full acceptance long after in 1960, is a clear case of Presentism.
@Rajk999 saidMorality is timeless based on the Natural Law which is ingrained in all of us. It has nothing to do with what the emperors, kings and dictators think is acceptable at the time (obviously there is little evidence that the majority of the People supported their interpretation).
You are not capable of fair and honest discussions ..
- I never said that the Holocaust was morally right at that time.
- Please say what you mean by ..moral arguments and stereotypes but only against certain groups.
Actually it is not about morally right or wrong. It is about what is acceptable in different eras of world history, because this has changed in ...[text shortened]... elf-determination which only got full acceptance long after in 1960, is a clear case of Presentism.
Your knowledge of history is nil. Self-determination was the very basis of the Mandate system though colored by racist ideas that the People of the Mandates weren't quite ready for it. From Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations:
"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22
One should toss out the racist (since racism is scientifically absurd) part and recognize the overriding principle. That the People should have the right to make the decisions regarding their society's policies isn't an idea that popped up a few years ago, but integral to human existence.
@no1marauder saidI dont care for the long lecture on morality. My point is that I rather not judge societies hundreds or thousands of years ago by our morals in this era. You seem to want to do that.
Morality is timeless based on the Natural Law which is ingrained in all of us. It has nothing to do with what the emperors, kings and dictators think is acceptable at the time (obviously there is little evidence that the majority of the People supported their interpretation).
Your knowledge of history is nil. Self-determination was the very basis of the Mandate system ...[text shortened]... ir society's policies isn't an idea that popped up a few years ago, but integral to human existence.
Regarding the matter of self-determination. Although it was understood long before that people have a right to determine their own future, it was only around 1960 it was ratified and agreed upon by the UN and member states.
Subsequently there were many colonies that did not want to de-colonize because there were many advantages to allowing the colonial power to retain control, especially in small colonies.
@Rajk999 saidNatural Law is a basic precept of Christianity (which I thought you were an adherent of):
You have no clue what moral code is hardwired into people. Only God knows that and God will judge people. If you are at least in your 50s or 60s which I suspect you are, you must have experienced growing up, with certain standards and morals by your parents, family or society, only to realise later on, that these same people had some pretty low morals themselves. Standards ...[text shortened]... the moral standard of today.
Today, is your moral standard, it was not theirs 50 or more yrs ago.
"The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense .... To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9"
https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_three/section_one/chapter_three/article_1/i_the_natural_moral_law.html
Of course, one need not believe in a Christian or any God to believe that we are hardwired to act on certain moral precepts.
1 edit
@Rajk999 saidNo, I judge what people and groups of people do based on timeless moral truths that are part of our nature.
I dont care for the long lecture on morality. My point is that I rather not judge societies hundreds or thousands of years ago by our morals in this era. You seem to want to do that.
Regarding the matter of self-determination. Although it was understood long before that people have a right to determine their own future, it was only around 1960 it was ratified and agreed ...[text shortened]... were many advantages to allowing the colonial power to retain control, especially in small colonies.
Sticking a spear in a male child or an adult, non-virgin woman was just as morally objectionable four thousand years ago as it is now.
I think it's useful to sometimes look at the 'bigger picture'. End of the day, land is just land, it doesn't actually 'belong' to anybody, aside from artificially constructed borders; the mountains, rivers, seas and so on will still be there long after humanity has blown itself to bits, baked itself into oblivion or disappeared under ice during the next ice age, whichever happens first. Religion is a human construct, in this regard we are what we are largely depending upon where we happen to be born. 'Ethnic cleansing' is a term often used, when ethnically there is no difference whatsoever between those 'cleansing' and those being cleansed. Racism is just an excuse to beat someone up for their skin pigmentation or other inherited physical traits; the 'human race' encapsulates and overrides everything else.
Still, we kill each other for land, or because we're differently religiously conditioned to the next person, or believe in a different prophet, or god, or philosophy, any old excuse seems to do, it's just what we as a species do. Takes a bit of sorting out, morally speaking, and I can't see it changing anytime soon.
This isn't written in response to anyone in particular, I just splurted it out when I had a few minutes to spare, the kettle's just boiled, coffee time....
@no1marauder saidI cannot see why you insist on missing the point. Its not about murder and abuse of people. In general there is no society from Adam to now that does not adhere to what you keep calling Natural Law. I am referring to differences in how society functions, and even though all these follow the Natural Law, they have adopted different values.
No, I judge what people and groups of people do based on timeless moral truths that are part of our nature.
Sticking a spear in a male child or an adult, non-virgin woman was just as morally objectionable four thousand years ago as it is now.
Eg, in the days of conquest, powerful nations, travelled the world and conquered, took prisoners, and colonized the world. I would not judge these countries as this was how the world was at that time. The era of colonialism came to an end between 1945 to 1960. During this time all European colonial powers, granted independence to all their colonies.
1 edit
@Indonesia-Phil saidWould you say that the native Indian population in the US & Canada, around 1500 estimated at about 10 million, own the entire continent of North America, and is it wrong for Europeans to enter and colonize the land.
I think it's useful to sometimes look at the 'bigger picture'. End of the day, land is just land, it doesn't actually 'belong' to anybody, aside from artificially constructed borders; the mountains, rivers, seas and so on will still be there long after humanity has blown itself to bits, baked itself into oblivion or disappeared under ice during the next ice age, whiche ...[text shortened]... I just splurted it out when I had a few minutes to spare, the kettle's just boiled, coffee time....
My view is that land and control of land is critical, otherwise the quality of your life would be substandard if the wrong people have control.
Eg, if the Arabs in Palestine were still in control and the Jews were occupying a tiny portion of Israel, Palestine would be a $$hole just like Gaza and the West Bank. Some cultures are backward as they lack the drive [and brains] to progresss.
@Rajk999 saidAll religion is murderous. Most people who kill do it in the name of god. George Carlin was spot on.
The most migration throughout history is from Islamic states. They flock to the western Christian countries. Know why? Islam is an evil murderous religion. It suits people like you.
@Metal-Brain saidThat is usually the response from the worst of the lot.
All religion is murderous. Most people who kill do it in the name of god. George Carlin was spot on.