Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThey are unchanging for me. I can't vouch for you. Or anybody else. I take responsibility for my own actions and my own estimation of ~ and objection to ~ other people's actions. I do not presume to speak on behalf of all mankind. And I do not claim to be relaying instructions from a supernatural being. If you want to frame your interpretations of ancient scriptures as "universal truths", go ahead. It lends no extra credence to your condemnation of rape. And it has no bearing on my condemnation of rape.
You are just blanking out that your views on rape are unchanging and therefore absolute.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAs you well know, I think your convoluted, superstitious notions extrapolated from ancient folk tales may well push your buttons and make you feel pumped up and "universal" in your pronouncements, but to me they mean that your moral compass is compromised.
1. God declares an annihilation form of judgment to stamp out a cancer.
2. The judgments are for public recognition of extreme sin.
3. Judgment is preceded by warning and/or long periods of exposure to the truth and time to repent.
4. Any and all ‘innocent’ adults are given a way of escape with their families; sometimes all given a way to avoid judgme ...[text shortened]... evil culture.
6. The judgment of God falls.
https://carm.org/god-of-old-testament-a-monster
Let's hope you never interpret your "holy" book - or suddenly insist that your god figure has told you - that certain human beings with a different belief system are "a cancer" and that you must participate in their "annihilation".
But, if you ever do, no doubt you will insist that the "truth" of your actions was "absolute" and "universal".
Originally posted by FMFYou said that "anyone's attempted justification" of rape is invalid. This means that your view that rape is wrong is absolute and anyones claims that it isn't, is wrong. This makes your claim a universal truth.
They are unchanging for me. I can't vouch for you. Or anybody else. I take responsibility for my own actions and my own estimation of ~ and objection to ~ other people's actions. I do not presume to speak on behalf of all mankind. And I do not claim to be relaying instructions from a supernatural being. If you want to frame your interpretations of ancient script ...[text shortened]... o extra credence to your condemnation of rape. And it has no bearing on my condemnation of rape.
Originally posted by FMFThe times of the Old Testament are long gone. We have the New Testament, and words of Christ that we should love our enemies.
As you well know, I think your convoluted, superstitious notions extrapolated from ancient folk tales may well push your buttons and make you feel pumped up and "universal" in your pronouncements, but to me they mean that your moral compass is compromised.
Let's hope you never interpret your "holy" book - or suddenly insist that your god figure has told you ...[text shortened]... er do, no doubt you will insist that the "truth" of your actions was "absolute" and "universal".
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI have explained exactly what I see as the sources of my moral sensibilities and the actions I base on them, and I have explained that I take full responsibility for my actions and my perspectives regarding the moral actions of others. I have also explained that I do not claim that my beliefs regarding my own responsibilities and my beliefs regarding the behaviour of others are "universal truths".
You said that "anyone's attempted justification" of rape is invalid. This means that your view that rape is wrong is absolute and anyones claims that it isn't, is wrong. This makes your claim a universal truth.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhy is this point important regarding rape?
You said that "anyone's attempted justification" of rape is invalid. This means that your view that rape is wrong is absolute and anyones claims that it isn't, is wrong. This makes your claim a universal truth.
When it has been established that under certain conditions, murder is okay?
If this is a God point you are trying to make, doesn't the murder issue end the 'absolute' line of reasoning?
Originally posted by FMFIf your claim is not a universal truth then you can't claim that someone else's view is not valid. Which you did.
I have explained exactly what I see as the sources of my moral sensibilities and the actions I base on them, and I have explained that I take full responsibility for my actions and my perspectives regarding the moral actions of others. I have also explained that I do not claim that my beliefs regarding my own responsibilities and my beliefs regarding the behaviour of others are "universal truths".
Originally posted by chaney3FMF says there are no absolute truths which means he can't claim that rape is always wrong. But he is.
Why is this point important regarding rape?
When it has been established that under certain conditions, murder is okay?
If this is a God point you are trying to make, doesn't the murder issue end the 'absolute' line of reasoning?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNevertheless, you find yourself justifying genocide while in the process of insisting that your moral compass is one that embodies "universal truths".
The times of the Old Testament are long gone. We have the New Testament, and words of Christ that we should love our enemies.
Whatever you personally happen to believe about Christ is neither here nor there to me.
You have been repeatedly accusing me of having a moral code that would be open to justifying genocide, when I don't, and then when you are asked about genocide in the mythology of your religion, you demonstrate yourself to be willing to justifying it and you do so by copy pasting something from the internet.
I think my moral compass makes more sense than yours, but you are free to disagree. As for whatever or however many adjectives or intensifiers you attach to the word "truth" when you peddle your own superstitious perspectives, it does nothing for me.
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBut I do claim that people who rape or justify rape are wrong, so your assertion about what I can and cannot claim is clearly untrue. I have explained over and over again: whether you - or someone who does condone rape, for that matter - happens to claim that what you/they believe is "universal truth", it makes no difference to my moral assessment. And it makes no difference to the responsibility I take for my moral assessment and my own behaviour.
If your claim is not a universal truth then you can't claim that someone else's view is not valid.
You have claimed that homosexuality is immoral, and of course I disagree. Presumably you believe very sincerely that the assertion "homosexuality is immoral" is a "universal truth". Can't you see that your 'absolutist' perspective doesn't have any bearing on homosexuality, and it doesn't have any bearing on my perspective on homosexuality, it can only really have a bearing on how you relate to homosexuals, which is a matter for you rather than me.
Originally posted by FMFOk let's take the word 'truth', with no intensifiers. Do you believe 'truth' can change? Yes or No?
Nevertheless, you find yourself justifying genocide while in the process of insisting that your moral compass is one that embodies "universal truths".
Whatever you personally happen to believe about Christ is neither here nor there to me.
You have been repeatedly accusing me of having a moral code that would be open to justifying genocide, when I don't, ...[text shortened]... to the word "truth" when you peddle your own superstitious perspectives, it does nothing for me.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkGive me an example of something you think is a "truth" for the purposes of this question. You have put the word in inverted commas, so you'll probably have to explain that as well.
Ok let's take the word 'truth', with no intensifiers. Do you believe 'truth' can change? Yes or No?
Originally posted by FMFCan your claim that people who justify rape are wrong ever change? By the way, your claim that I have claimed that homosexuality is immoral is a lie.
But I do claim that people who rape or justify rape are wrong, so your assertion about what I can and cannot claim is clearly untrue. I have explained over and over again: whether you - or someone who does condone rape, for that matter - happens to claim that what you/they believe is "universal truth", it makes no difference to my moral assessment. And it makes ...[text shortened]... eally have a bearing on how you relate to homosexuals, which is a matter for you rather than me.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhat does this "Ok let's..." signify? You do realize there are literally dozens of observations and questions I have contributed to this conversation that you have not yet responded to, or even acknowledged. Are you going to return to them?
Ok let's ...