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.

Please lets be civil, we are chess players. gentlemen of a bygone era.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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 ...[text shortened]... ong. Even among believers there are courses of action which one would follow and another reject.

But the Bible clearly states that certain things are wrong, are you saying that every 'sin' stated in the Bible is debatable and none are always wrong?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
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?

Again with the silly argument. It may be that your ridiculous example is always wrong, neither you nor I can know this. It is asinine in the extreme to assert that moral relativism means that any action is justifiable. Your schoolboy logic-chopping demonstrates nothing of the sort. You can 'believe' anything you like, human morality remains what it is. The silly example you have imagined of course seems morally repugnant, that is precisely why you repeat it with such tedious frequency. It does not prove your belief that moral absolutes exist, and even if it did, that would not prove the existence of god. Where do I get my morals? The same place we all do, they're a consequence of our empathy. Not the bible.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Again with the silly argument. It may be that your ridiculous example is always wrong, neither you nor I can know this. It is asinine in the extreme to assert that moral relativism means that any action is justifiable. Your schoolboy logic-chopping demonstrates nothing of the sort. You can 'believe' anything you like, human morality remains what it i ...[text shortened]... I get my morals? The same place we all do, they're a consequence of our empathy. Not the bible.

Why do you think it is impossible to know whether or not it is always wrong to torture a baby for fun? If that is impossible, why is it possible to know if anything else is ever right or wrong?

If you say your moral standard is based on 'empathy', then what do you do when what is “empathy” for you contradicts with what is “empathy” for someone else?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Why do you think it is impossible to know whether or not it is always wrong to torture a baby for fun? If that is impossible, why is it possible to know if anything else is ever right or wrong?

If you say your moral standard is based on 'empathy', then what do you do when what is “empathy” for you contradicts with what is “empathy” for someone else?

You really are a broken record aren't you? It is not necessary to know that something is 'absolutely' wrong in order to consider it wrong, as indeed you know, because you don't know that any morals are absolute, you just choose to believe that they are. This doesn't make them so.

Everybody's moral standard is based on empathy, whether you like it or not. Do you approve of slavery? It's acceptable according to your scripture. Does that make it right? Of course it doesn't.

Sometimes people will disagree over the nature of an act or acts, one party arguing that it is morally acceptable, the other the converse. Both positions may be equally valid. This is part of the human experience. It is not so simple as you would like to believe. When you grow up you will realise this.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You really are a broken record aren't you? It is not necessary to know that something is 'absolutely' wrong in order to consider it wrong, as indeed you know, because you don't know that any morals are absolute, you just choose to believe that they are. This doesn't make them so.

Everybody's moral standard is based on empathy, whether you like it ...[text shortened]... ience. It is not so simple as you would like to believe. When you grow up you will realise this.

There is only one valid position, but you are free to embrace a lie. Do not confuse freedom with what is true.

Originally posted by Eladar
There is only one valid position, but you are free to embrace a lie. Do not confuse freedom with what is true.

How sad our existence would be if the rich tapestry of the human experience could be winnowed down to the contents of a book one could read in a few short weeks. Try to reach beyond the false ideaology of your petty faith and taste the immeasurably rich banquet which lies there.

Originally posted by josephw
Like that.

I didn't get offended and this thread is about the spirituality forum-not about getting offended

Originally posted by Eladar
Then of you want to discusd start a thread. Why barge into a discussion that doesn't concern you?

Because it's a SPIRITUALITY forum. Not a Christian one. get it?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Boiling it down, if you know enough to hold another accountable for something, you've
no excuse yourself if you do not also live by that standard. We could also use Jesus'
words:

Matthew 7
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beh ...[text shortened]... that is in thine own eye? ...

One of the more scary verses in all of the Bible in my opinion.

Scary? I'm sick of being "scared" into Christianity! or people trying it on. It didn't work since I was 8.
I have a strong inner concience but whenever someone said I would be judged and burn in hell it was just wasted words. Hot air you junkies

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Again with the silly argument. It may be that your ridiculous example is always wrong, neither you nor I can know this. It is asinine in the extreme to assert that moral relativism means that any action is justifiable. Your schoolboy logic-chopping demonstrates nothing of the sort. You can 'believe' anything you like, human morality remains what it i ...[text shortened]... I get my morals? The same place we all do, they're a consequence of our empathy. Not the bible.

Excellent post.

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.

more or less the same,but you must remember the KKK are Christians and so are those black gospel singers. Hmmmm

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? For example would you say the actions of Nazi-Germay are objectively evil?

I would say they are extremely ignorant

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Please lets be civil, we are chess players. gentlemen of a bygone era.

One suspects young padawan your own civility will be degraded once the fellow has asked you the same question 97 times and each time ignored your reply.

(My spellcheck wants me to replace padawan with panda. I was tempted).

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Please lets be civil, we are chess players. gentlemen of a bygone era.

Having a happy day? nice posting my dear Robbie.

However the inter net may just prolong this game for a century or 2 yet 🙂