Originally posted by avalanchethecat How do you mean exactly? I certainly believe that there are people who behave in a way which what I think of as right-thinking people would term evil.
When you say some people may behave in a way that 'right-thinking' people would term evil, are you implying that certain actions are objectively evil regardless of what other people may think about it? For example would you say the actions of Nazi-Germay are objectively evil?
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke Hate to break it to you buddy but we follow the same standards. You just happen to filter yours through a fictional deity.
Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk When you say some people may behave in a way that 'right-thinking' people would term evil, are you implying that certain actions are objectively evil regardless of what other people may think about it?
I imply nothing, I meant precisely what I said. I find your desire to label morality as 'objective' or 'relative' to be somewhat odious, as it is clearly a pivotal point of your argument, and seems to lack meaning in reality. Yes, it is true, I cannot imagine a circumstance in which torturing a baby for fun could be considered morally good, does this make it 'objectively' true? No it does not. This would require that I could imagine all circumstances, which of course I cannot, or at least, I cannot be certain that I can. You have been banging on at this argument for so long now it is just boring.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke Indeed sir, and I have quoted that very same passage at least 3 times in the last few months. 🙂
So far, you are first Christian not to try and wriggle out of it and accuse me of taking it out of context. FetchMyJunk in particular doesn't care for it.
hmm it appears to me to be self evident that all are free moral agents with recourse to the faculty of conscience and as you mention all are made in 'Gods image', that is having said qualities like an awareness of justice, creativity, empathy, the need to love and be loved etc etc why this should be a problem for believers I cannot say. Perhaps its an 'us verse them thing', or insecurity or kind of self righteous indignation that its inexcusable not to believe in God? Its difficult to say.
I have heard this argument before from a minister of the Church of Scotland no less telling me that because unbelievers have allegedly no moral absolutes that they are free to do what they like with impunity by virtue of being a kind of moral law unto themselves. Its difficult to understand where the idea is coming from and why. If you know I would be most appreciative if you could elucidate upon it.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat I imply nothing, I meant precisely what I said. I find your desire to label morality as 'objective' or 'relative' to be somewhat odious, as it is clearly a pivotal point of your argument, and seems to lack meaning in reality. Yes, it is true, I cannot imagine a circumstance in which torturing a baby for fun could be considered morally good, does this ...[text shortened]... certain that I can. You have been banging on at this argument for so long now it is just boring.
So you are saying there may be circumstances that you cannot image where it may be morally acceptable to torture a baby for fun? Why can't you admit that it is always wrong?
If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie hmm it appears to me to be self evident that all are free moral agents with recourse to the faculty of conscience and as you mention all are made in 'Gods image', that is having said qualities like an awareness of justice, creativity, empathy, the need to love and be loved etc etc why this should be a problem for believers I cannot say. Perhaps its ...[text shortened]... s coming from and why. If you know I would be most appreciative if you could elucidate upon it.
Well sir, our friend Fetchmyjunk is putting forward that very idea. (Take away God and we are all 'Lord of the Flies' )
Seeing as he has accused me of evading questions, perhaps he can muster the courage to answer yours directly...
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke Well sir, our friend Fetchmyjunk is putting forward that very idea. (Take away God and we are all 'Lord of the Flies' )
Seeing as he has accused me of evading questions, perhaps he can muster the courage to answer yours directly...
You believe there are no moral absolutes, which means nothing is ever always wrong, not even torturing a baby for fun.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?
Fetchmyjunk, like you I am a believer in the Father and the gospel of the Christ, the Messiah and saviour of mankind. Atheists have a subjective standard which all humans possess. If they see an innocent struck down will they not also be incensed? I think so. They are flesh and blood the same as you and I. We should be careful not to become like the ancient Jews who held the Samaritans in derision because they professed belief in something else, to such an extent that it blinded them to the needs of a wounded man. 😀
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk You believe there are no moral absolutes, which means nothing is ever always wrong, not even torturing a baby for fun.
Robbie posted:
I have heard this argument before from a minister of the Church of Scotland no less telling me that because unbelievers have allegedly no moral absolutes that they are free to do what they like with impunity by virtue of being a kind of moral law unto themselves. Its difficult to understand where the idea is coming from and why. If you know I would be most appreciative if you could elucidate upon it.'
If you lack the balls to respond to this post (and just pretend you haven't read it) don't bother asking me any of your puerile questions.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Fetchmyjunk, like you I am a believer in the Father and the gospel of the Christ, the Messiah and saviour of mankind. Atheists have a subjective standard which all humans possess. If they see an innocent struck down will they not also be incensed? I think so. They are flesh and blood the same as you and I. We should be careful not to become like ...[text shortened]... lief in something else, to such an extent that it blinded them to the needs of a wounded man. 😀
When you say there is evil, aren’t you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. If there is no moral law giver there is no moral law. If there is no moral law there is no good and evil.
Do you not have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke Robbie posted:
I have heard this argument before from a minister of the Church of Scotland no less telling me that because unbelievers have allegedly no moral absolutes that they are free to do what they like with impunity by virtue of being a kind of moral law unto themselves. Its difficult to understand where the idea is coming from and why. If ...[text shortened]... ost (and just pretend you haven't read it) don't bother asking me any of your puerile questions.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk When you say there is evil, aren’t you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver.
Do you not have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?
Yes I do but its not so black and white. First of all there is the Biblical standard which because we believe it is inspired or 'God breathed', we turn to it for guidance. However it also takes discernment, we weigh up the pros and cons of the message, reflect upon how it relates to the situation we are trying to work on and in conjunction with our consciences, we are able hopefully to come to a kind of consensus as to what is right and what is wrong. Even among believers there are courses of action which one would follow and another reject.
spirituality forum
21 Jan '17 18:37
Back to Top