BUMP for fetchmyjunk.
What do the "moral absolutes" you believe in have to say about women having to remain silent in churches, not being allowed to speak, but having to be "in submission" instead? Is there a "moral absolutes" angle for you on this issue?
Do the "moral absolutes" you believe in have any bearing on your personal opinion about capital punishment?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThe question was "Do the "moral absolutes" you believe in have any bearing on the issue of corporal punishment, and things like men husbands using physical force (or violence) against their wives?"
If you believe the Bible allows for capital punishment or for husbands to beat their wives, state your case. I am not aware that it does.
So you're just going to clam up on these questions on morality, is that fair to say?
Originally posted by FMFThe Bible teaches husbands to love their wives as they love their own body so yes I think husbands beating their wives is wrong. As a kid I experienced corporal punishment but obviously I believe there are boundaries for that. The way it was administered to me did me no harm, in fact I think I benefitted from it.
The question was "Do the "moral absolutes" you believe in have any bearing on the issue of corporal punishment, and things like men husbands using physical force (or violence) against their wives?"
So you're just going to clam up on these questions on morality, is that fair to say?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThe moral "boundaries" are subject to each individual moral agent's subjective analysis, guided by their moral sensibilities, as they endeavour to make as wise a decision as they can, right?
The Bible teaches husbands to love their wives as they love their own body so yes I think husbands beating their wives is wrong. As a kid I experienced corporal punishment but obviously I believe there are boundaries for that. The way it was administered to me did me no harm, in fact I think I benefitted from it.
So what is your so-called "moral absolute" regarding using violent actions on children?
Originally posted by FMFMoral absolutism is an ethical view that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong. That does not mean that every single actions is either right or wrong. The Bible is a guideline on morality some of it is open to interpretation. In other cases the Bible is clear that certain things are always wrong and this is not open to interpretation.
The moral "boundaries" are subject to each individual moral agent's subjective analysis, guided by their moral sensibilities, as they endeavour to make as wise a decision as they can, right?
So what is your so-called "moral absolute" regarding using violent actions on children?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAre you able to explain how homosexual acts are "intrinsically wrong" without citing your personal opinions about the "universality" of ancient Hebrew mythology and its Christian offshoot?
Moral absolutism is an ethical view that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong. That does not mean that every single actions is either right or wrong. The Bible is a guideline on morality some of it is open to interpretation. In other cases the Bible is clear that certain things are always wrong and this is not open to interpretation.
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo there is no so-called "moral absolute" that pertains to violent actions against children, is that something you are conceding? You have no "objective standard" to measure violent acts against children, this is something you accept?
Moral absolutism is an ethical view that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong. That does not mean that every single actions is either right or wrong. The Bible is a guideline on morality some of it is open to interpretation. In other cases the Bible is clear that certain things are always wrong and this is not open to interpretation.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkMy human nature and life experience is a guideline on morality, some of what I believe is open to interpretation. In other cases I am clear that certain things always seem to me to be wrong and this is not open to interpretation. Does this create an "objective standard" for you too?
The Bible is a guideline on morality some of it is open to interpretation. In other cases the Bible is clear that certain things are always wrong and this is not open to interpretation.
Originally posted by FMFI don't think that works because if you say you got your objective standard of morality from your human life experiences, then if Nazi Germany was morally wrong to put Jews to death, why was it wrong since its morals were derived from its life experiences?
My human nature and life experience is a guideline on morality, some of what I believe is open to interpretation. In other cases I am clear that certain things always seem to me to be wrong and this is not open to interpretation. Does this create an "objective standard" for you too?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo that's a "no", then is it?
I don't think that works because if you say you got your objective standard of morality from your human life experiences, then if Nazi Germany was morally wrong to put Jews to death, why was it wrong since its morals were derived from its life experiences?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo you deciding in what way it should be a "guideline on morality",
The Bible is a guideline on morality some of it is open to interpretation. In other cases the Bible is clear that certain things are always wrong and this is not open to interpretation.
and you deciding the "some of it" which is "open to interpretation" [and "not open to interpretation"]
and you deciding what those "interpretations" should be,
and you deciding what cases are - and are not - included in the "In other cases" thing you mention,
and you deciding what "certain things" actually means and refers to in practice,
and you deciding which "things are always wrong" and "which "things are [not] always wrong"
... this whole process that you personally engage in, creates something "objective"? Is that what you'd have people here believe?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIn the context of our discussion, an "objective moral" would be a moral truth that is not based upon a person's subjective experience, that applies to all people, and does not change with circumstances. By contrast, a subjective moral would be a moral that is based on opinion and does not apply universally. For example, one person might think that drinking alcoholic beverages is wrong, where another person has no problem with it. This would be an example of a subjective moral based upon personal preference.
So that's a "no", then is it?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBut the way you have arrived at your moral sensibilities is not "objective" in any way whatsoever.
In the context of our discussion, an "objective moral" would be a moral truth that is not based upon a person's subjective experience, that applies to all people, and does not change with circumstances. By contrast, a subjective moral would be a moral that is based on opinion and does not apply universally. For example, one person might think that drinki ...[text shortened]... problem with it. This would be an example of a subjective moral based upon personal preference.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI'll wait for your response to my post that starts with "So you deciding..."
So are you are claiming that objective moral standards cannot be established and universal moral truths cannot be defended by anyone, whether they believe in God or not?
It is EXACTLY the kind of post of mine that you have blanked out over and over and over again.
I'll await for your response to