@Suzianne saidWhat in the world does the Republican Party have to do with this? What do I claim every day? You have not once actually demonstrated anything to clear up your claims.
You're missing the entire point.
You SHOULD know, and you claim to, every day, but you clearly don't.
"You are claiming discernment as if it's something everyone can turn on and off at will"
Not everyone, but certainly Christians, yet you can't. Speaks volumes, about you and the entire Republican Party.
@Lionel-Hutz saidWouldn’t you run into the same issues dividing sacred and profane if you asked about normal and abnormal?
Debate Eliade's the sacred and the profane.
Go!
@KellyJay saidI am not sure.
Wouldn’t you run into the same issues dividing sacred and profane if you asked about normal and abnormal?
1 edit
@Lionel-Hutz saidBoth sets have a high view and a low one and unless you have some scale everyone can acknowledge is the proper way to look at things, you can only argue, and not about anything that can be objectively considered. We may as well argue over which is prettier, green or blue.
I am not sure.
@KellyJay saidI don't think sacred is the high and profane is the low. Neither vice versa.
Both sets have a high view and a low one and unless you have some scale everyone can acknowledge is the proper way to look at things, you can only argue, and not about anything that can be objectively considered. We may as well argue over which is prettier, green or blue.
1 edit
@Lionel-Hutz saidThis is the point I'm making, you don't even have an up or down, without a fixed point of reference! What does it matter if you call something good or bad, high or low, sacred or profane, right or wrong if there is no common standard that everyone adheres to? Without that to point to no matter what, it is what someone thinks, any ole opinion matters as anyone else',
I don't think sacred is the high and profane is the low. Neither vice versa.
@KellyJay saidOh, dude, relativism is so 90s.
This is the point I'm making, you don't even have an up or down, without a fixed point of reference! What does it matter if you call something good or bad, high or low, sacred or profane, right or wrong if there is no common standard that everyone adheres to? Without that to point to no matter what, it is what someone thinks, any ole opinion matters as anyone else',
@Lionel-Hutz saidTruth doesn’t change with times only opinions, you have some logical reasoning behind your stance?
Oh, dude, relativism is so 90s.
@KellyJay saidNot skilled in internetz jargon, are we?
Truth doesn’t change with times only opinions, you have some logical reasoning behind your stance?
This has nothing to with time. It has to do with ethical relativism proven as invalid since its heyday until today.
At the heart of Ethical Subjectivism is a theory of value called Nihilism. Nihilists believe that values are not real. People might have various moral beliefs, but, really, nothing is good or bad, or right or wrong. According to a nihilist, neither side is right in those debates, because there is no “right.”
So long as we consider only difficult or controversial moral issues, Nihilism might seem plausible. After all, we may ourselves be unsure what to think about such issues; perhaps we’re unsure because there’s no right answer? Yet Nihilism and Ethical Subjectivism seem much less plausible when applied to simpler matters. To take a new example: It is a fact that the Nazis killed millions of people based on their racial backgrounds, but, according to Nihilism, it is not a fact that the Nazis acted badly. Instead, the nihilist would say that different people have different opinions, and no one is right. You may believe one thing, but Adolph Hitler believed something else, and Hitler’s opinion was just as good as yours.
Viewed in this light, Nihilism seems absurd.
@Lionel-Hutz saidIt has to do with truth, and I'm quite clear, that has nothing to do with time
Not skilled in internetz jargon, are we?
This has nothing to with time. It has to do with ethical relativism proven as invalid since its heyday until today.
At the heart of Ethical Subjectivism is a theory of value called Nihilism. Nihilists believe that values are not real. People might have various moral beliefs, but, really, nothing is good or bad, or right or wr ...[text shortened]... else, and Hitler’s opinion was just as good as yours.
Viewed in this light, Nihilism seems absurd.
because truth does not change with time, while opinions and cultures are quite
malleable.
Those who forsake the notion of truths in reality for opinions and feelings have
no foundational basis for anything; not even logic serves their points of view.
They can declare contradictions as true simultaneously on any topic and not care.
Therefore if you are going to state what was true earlier compared to now and
claim due to time what was true has changed, note time does not affect any truth
whatsoever, you have said nothing. I don't care what internetz jargon, you dress
it up with.
@KellyJay saidEnjoy your cultural relativism then, sir. I'm sure life is easier for you that way.
It has to do with truth, and I'm quite clear, that has nothing to do with time
because truth does not change with time, while opinions and cultures are quite
malleable.
Those who forsake the notion of truths in reality for opinions and feelings have
no foundational basis for anything; not even logic serves their points of view.
They can declare contradictions as true ...[text shortened]... ruth
whatsoever, you have said nothing. I don't care what internetz jargon, you dress
it up with.
@Lionel-Hutz saidNothing about culture realism in what I have said. I told you opinions and cultural norms change with time, so I have been up front about that. It is those who think they have the answers because they through time have arrived with the answers, can be dismissive without any logical explanation for why which can be explained!
Enjoy your cultural relativism then, sir. I'm sure life is easier for you that way.
@KellyJay saidComb through history and the world and find the minimum requirements of behavior for each and every single human group. Pro tip: they are tied to cohesion, survival, and permanence.
Nothing about culture realism in what I have said. I told you opinions and cultural norms change with time, so I have been up front about that. It is those who think they have the answers because they through time have arrived with the answers, can be dismissive without any logical explanation for why which can be explained!
There you go: that's a seed for a human morality that has never changed. Whenever it has, those societies don't exist anymore.
It's not really that difficult. Ethics 101.
@Lionel-Hutz saidExactly how does a cohesive requirement of human behavior occur in the human race unless it is encoded into it? If that is the case, something much greater than the human race is involved, so that we can see this innate moral set of rules for ourselves throughout time, this is counter to the notion we are figuring out as we go.
Comb through history and the world and find the minimum requirements of behavior for each and every single human group. Pro tip: they are tied to cohesion, survival, and permanence.
There you go: that's a seed for a human morality that has never changed. Whenever it has, those societies don't exist anymore.
It's not really that difficult. Ethics 101.
Ethics and morals are not the same thing, they began when in human history?
