Theology Discussion?

[Doggler]

Originally Posted by randilover

But if moral relativism exists, then how could we consider a Ghandi or Mandela good and the others bad? Wouldn't you be more apt to say that you just "disagree" with Stalin and Hitler? (I don't think you would, by the way, just making a point.)

Ghandi is good = opinion

Hitler was bad = opinion

Neither are facts. Facts would be Hitler was 5'7", Ghandi was bald.

I'm sure we could've gone back in time and found many people who we'd perceive as genuinley good folks who thought Hitler was great, that he was protecting Germans from this atrocity or that one.

Did I disagree with what Hitler did? Absolutely. I don't care what his arguments were. Although, if I were a blond-haired, blue-eyed German in the early 30's, I'm sure it's possible that I would've been succeptable to being convinced by his arguments.

It's easy to justify killing if you allow yourself to look at things as us vs. them. "Self-defense" and such. "Oh, why did those crazy Muslims blow up the World Trade Center?". "Because they're evil". What? Obviously a long line of factors and influences went into their decision-making processes. Ask each of them before they did it if they thought it was the right thing to do and they'd all say yes. Ask *some* completely peaceful folks across the globe about it, some of them would say yes, or at least that they understand why they did it. It's all a matter of perspective, of which 'team' you're on and how different your 'teams' moral codes are than the others.

[Doggler]

Originally Posted by randilover

So no, I am not a MR in this regard, neither do I think the president or the country he leads is either. I think murder is wrong. There is also usually a difference between murder and killing that is drawn.

It's definately a grey line, the difference between killing and murder. Were the people in the WTC murdered? How many people in Iraq and Afghanistan were killed, and how many were murdered? If someone has a gun in their hands and they are shot dead, can it be called murder?

I guess my own personal moral code has a higher standard of when it's acceptable to kill than the president does. And he's the religious one...not me.

[Doggler]

Originally Posted by randilover

Again, it's interesting that you think it's wrong to beat your wife, why would it be if it you think it's ok and society around complies?

There's a difference between it being wrong and being wrong for me.

I'm sure there are many things that Western society views as acceptable now that won't be in the future. Just an example, but just as we look back at our treatment of women, in the future they might look back in awe at how we mistreated animals, how we ate them, etc. (note that is not my opinion, merely an example)

Or we might look back in amazement at how we treated the poor, how we believed that everyone must be accountable only for themselves, how we dismissed the poor as lazy, or whatever. Things change.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

And if you really think about it, you guys are arguing from a MA standpoint to say that there are no MA. The arguement collapes on itself as you are stating absolutes do not exist except in the case that absolutes do not exist. It would be like saying life is meaningless. If it's meaningless, than what have you just said has no meaning and therefore does not mean anything and you could never have reachd that conclusion. The logic is flawed and makes no sense. I'm not sure you guys can keep this up.

Come on RL, after debating with you for numerous pages, I know you are not this dense. The absolutism and relativism of MR and MA apply to moral and ethical questions only. They have no bearing on issues not pertaining to morality and ethics, to wit, just because someone is a moral relativist, that does not mean they believe there are no absolute truths in the world, just that there are no absolute moral truths in the world. This continued claim that any MR argument collapses upon itself because it actually asserts an absolute truth is illogical.

[Doggler]

Originally Posted by randilover

Ok, so you really believe that the only reason they were wrong to lie cheat and steal is because there is a law on the books about it? You say that it's against you personal morals, but so what as they are relative, you couldn't tell those scoundrals that. You are telling me that if it doesn't violate the law or a person's conscience, it's ok? You really don't believe that Doggler.

In a sense, I really do. But with a caveat. The REASON it's illegal to lie and cheat is because most people in our society (or, not coincidentally, in ANY society) believe this to be wrong for them as well. If someone does something that I don't believe is acceptable to my set of morals, and if I feel it may affect me or my family adversely, I absolutely would be compelled to take action. If someone were to kill MY family while I slept and I knew who it was, I would be in a real quandary. I likely would feel compelled to go against what I felt was right for me. But I would be cognisant of it. Just as almost all of us would be.

As humans, we have many commonalities in what we view as acceptable and unacceptable behavior. It's rooted in us. It's what keeps us from for the most part killing and stealing from our neighbors and family, and to a lesser extent keeps us civil with the people in the country next door.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

There is an absolute and it does not change over time. Rome and Christian culture of 300 AD are not much different than the morals you live by now.

Roman and Christian culture aren't much different between now and 300 AD? Doubtful, but that is another debate.

There is an absolute and it does change over time. Over the centuries, the so called moral absolutists have used Chritianity to justify the destruction of native americans and their culture, they have used Christianity to justify slavery, and they have used Christianity to outlaw interracial marriages. What was that about constancy again?

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Roman and Christian culture aren't much different between now and 300 AD? Doubtful, but that is another debate.

Don't take me out of context, I clarified my statement more than what you have above. Societies throughout history have shared more in common than not.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

There is an absolute and it does change over time. Over the centuries, the so called moral absolutists have used Chritianity to justify the destruction of native americans and their culture, they have used Christianity to justify slavery, and they have used Christianity to outlaw interracial marriages. What was that about constancy again?

We have dealt with these before that these were not Christians in the true sense, political means were the end goal, and the way you state the above just proves my point.

Also, please don't forget Christianty also was used to support and provide for the unfortunate throughout all of history, used to end modern slavery, and used to overcome racism, among other "GOOD" things.

Once more, how do you guys justify arguing for the moral relative when you believe there are no absolutes?

[Doggler]

Originally Posted by randilover

Also, please don't forget Christianty also was used to support and provide for the unfortunate throughout all of history

Call me pessimistic but some of that support and provision came at a price. Many of these poor and unfortunate were also targetted for conversion to Christianity. Though not as blatantly prevelant today, this sort of missionary work was quite common in the past many centuries. (although I'll admit that this might be a moot point as the motives for helping the needy cannot be pinned on overt 'conversion', instead could be intended as 'I do it out of love for God.)

Originally Posted by randilover

...used to end modern slavery, and used to overcome racism, among other "GOOD" things.

to incredibly oversimplify this issue....North was(is?) less Christian than the South. North was more against slavery than the South. North was(is?) less racist than the South. Obviously not trying to paint a picture of "all Christians are slave-owning bigots" by any means, just pointing out that it wasn't because of Christians that slavery ended.

[Doggler]

Originally Posted by randilover

We have dealt with these before that these were not Christians in the true sense, political means were the end goal, and the way you state the above just proves my point.

I am an atheist. I need to provide no disclaimer, no apology for anyone else claiming to be. I don't agree with many of the things other atheists or agnostics may or may not believe.

However, I hear the "They are not the TRUE Christians" argument a lot. I find it puzzling how within such a large group of people, there are subgroups claiming that they are right and others are wrong...that some folks that claim to be true Christians would strike down claims by another group who say the same thing.

[smsmith40]

RL

Your own argument is completely morally relativist. Ask yourself the question, is it wrong to kill another human being ? If the answer is anything other than yes or no, then you are a relativist. Period.

Any other answer, like perhaps sometimes, or insome circumastances, then you are a moral relativist. The moral instruction "Thou shalt not kill" (p.s I know there are different biblical translations) is not absolute to you, it depends on circumstance.

In fact perhaps the fact that there are different translations of this commandment that say "Thou shalt not commit murder" indicates how many moral relativists there are among the Christians.


p.s The point I was making about Ghandhi and Hitler was that they believed in moral absolutes, not me. As a relativist I am perfectly willing to re-state my argument.

Instead of Ghandi good and Hitler bad would you accept that Ghandi is just more good and Hitler is less good.

In terms of this discussion I am merely less wrong than you (j/k)

[smsmith40]

I checked out a few bible translations of Exodus 20, it would seem that older versions (Original King James) generally have "Thou shalt not kill" and newer versions (American Standard, New English etc) have "Thou shalt not muder".

Sounds like creeping relativism to me. I think most people would accept that there is a substantive moral difference between the two statements.

RL - My Good News Bible at home says "Thou shalt not commit murder". What does yours day

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Doggler

Maybe it's time to start a thread on that. Looks like this topic has been hammered on enough...

Care to kick an Iraq War thread off for us?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

We have dealt with these before that these were not Christians in the true sense, political means were the end goal, and the way you state the above just proves my point.

Did we? I must have skipped out on that portion.

You say they are not Christians, but they said they were then, just as you are now. That's my whole point. It doesn't matter if you say with hindsight they did not follow the true Christian standards that we now understand today. The point is they thought they were following Christian standards then, just as you think you are following Christian standards now, and in the future, Christians will look back at you and say you were wrong for some of the things you believe. That, in a nutshell, is Moral Relativism.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Preds

Care to kick an Iraq War thread off for us?

No, please don't.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

I checked out a few bible translations of Exodus 20, it would seem that older versions (Original King James) generally have "Thou shalt not kill" and newer versions (American Standard, New English etc) have "Thou shalt not muder".

Sounds like creeping relativism to me. I think most people would accept that there is a substantive moral difference between the two statements.

RL - My Good News Bible at home says "Thou shalt not commit murder". What does yours day

You'd have to look at the original Hebrew, which almost anyone would translate as your Good News Bible does. The King James is tough sometimes (Fun Fact: You know the first printing actually had a typo that read "Thou shalt commit adultery.") simply for it's age, the english has changed substantially. Killing would be tough to justify, and the OT law goes on to specify the difference between the two (i.e.- manslaughter was not considered a capital offense [if the offender made it to a city of refuge], war was also not subject to murder, etc.).

[smsmith40]

I wasn't trying to have a go at the various translation. What I was saying is that thou shalt not commit murder is a morally relative statement. It leaves society to develop its own definition of murder. We know that different societies define that differently. Capital punishment is not murder in the US, it is here. That's moral relativism.

[Nittany Dodgers]

For the MAs, is lying good or bad?

[randilover]

This conversation has become interesting again...

Originally Posted by Doggler

Call me pessimistic but some of that support and provision came at a price. Many of these poor and unfortunate were also targetted for conversion to Christianity. Though not as blatantly prevelant today, this sort of missionary work was quite common in the past many centuries. (although I'll admit that this might be a moot point as the motives for helping the needy cannot be pinned on overt 'conversion', instead could be intended as 'I do it out of love for God.)

You'd be hard pressed to consider conversion a "price" to pay for support and provision. Not to mention most missionary work is not set out with a pay to play mentality, that if you come to my church you'll get my medical supplies. Usually just the opposite.

Originally Posted by Doggler

to incredibly oversimplify this issue....North was(is?) less Christian than the South. North was more against slavery than the South. North was(is?) less racist than the South. Obviously not trying to paint a picture of "all Christians are slave-owning bigots" by any means, just pointing out that it wasn't because of Christians that slavery ended.

It's not oversimplifying at all. And slavery was a global issue, not an American one. Wilberforce was a Christian and because of his faith he may be single-handedly attributable with ending slavery in England. Plus the American abolitionists were by and large Christians. The north was not less Christian than the south (at least at that time), just a different "brand." Usually Christian was part of the "culture" of the south, not the reasoning for the slavery. Men like Lincoln directly attributed God with their value of human life (and you'd be hard pressed to come up with another way to value it).

I think we should also differentiate between people doing wrong and morals. I think some of what you guys are all saying is that everyone appears to be relativist because we all believe certain things are wrong but do them anyway. If I believe adultery is wrong, but cheat on my wife, that isn’t necessarily because I don’t think it’s wrong anymore and my morals have changed. As if I am confronted on the fact I will give such and such a reason of why the marriage was so bad that it didn’t matter anyway, or some such thing. By doing so, I will actually be confirming the idea that I think it’s wrong by the fact that I feel I need an excuse for it.

There are also what I will call conflicting morals, for lack of a better word. The war thing is a great example. Yes, murder is wrong, but so is a government not responding to injustice committed to it’s citizens. George Bush is a moral absolutist, he sees in black and white (proven by his use of words like evil, etc.), and I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But that doesn’t mean he is moral relative because of his actions post 9/11.

Still left hanging on the idea of how there are no moral absolutes… except for the idea that there are no moral absolutes… in which case there are moral absolutes.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

I wasn't trying to have a go at the various translation. What I was saying is that thou shalt not commit murder is a morally relative statement. It leaves society to develop its own definition of murder. We know that different societies define that differently. Capital punishment is not murder in the US, it is here. That's moral relativism.

I'd go beyond that, in the fact that both think murder is wrong. The designation of what consitutes murder vs. justice is the difference, but both you and I think murder is wrong. Good example, BTW.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

For the MAs, is lying good or bad?

I'm sure there's a catch to this one. Bad, of course.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

I'm sure there's a catch to this one. Bad, of course.

What if by telling a lie, you can safe someone's life?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

Still left hanging on the idea of how there are no moral absolutes… except for the idea that there are no moral absolutes… in which case there are moral absolutes.

For the record, I've responded to this twice with nary a response from you.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Did we? I must have skipped out on that portion.

You say they are not Christians, but they said they were then, just as you are now. That's my whole point. It doesn't matter if you say with hindsight they did not follow the true Christian standards that we now understand today. The point is they thought they were following Christian standards then, just as you think you are following Christian standards now, and in the future, Christians will look back at you and say you were wrong for some of the things you believe. That, in a nutshell, is Moral Relativism.

They weren't following Christian standards. And there were Christians at that time who thought so as well, often to their own peril. Men like Huss and Luther are held up as heroes now for that reason.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

For the record, I've responded to this twice with nary a response from you.

In all honesty have not seen the response, or maybe I am not realizing you are responding to it. What is it?

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

What if by telling a lie, you can safe someone's life?

Hm, what if? You answer first.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

In all honesty have not seen the response, or maybe I am not realizing you are responding to it. What is it?

See post #334.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

Hm, what if? You answer first.

Well, since I'm not a MA, it's not a catch 22 for me. But I'll tell you what trail I was leading you down.

If you answer, "well, lying is ok in that situation, you are not really a MA. You are consequentialist, that is, someone who believes the morality of an action depends on the context and consequences of that action.

If you say, "no, lying is still bad in that situation," well, then you're just plain insade.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Doggler

I am an atheist. I need to provide no disclaimer, no apology for anyone else claiming to be. I don't agree with many of the things other atheists or agnostics may or may not believe.

I hope you don't feel I am disrespecting you. Not my intent. When I argue I am usually am trying to draw a line of thought out to see where it leads. I am not asking for an apology for all atheists/agnostics.

Originally Posted by Doggler

However, I hear the "They are not the TRUE Christians" argument a lot. I find it puzzling how within such a large group of people, there are subgroups claiming that they are right and others are wrong...that some folks that claim to be true Christians would strike down claims by another group who say the same thing.

Confusing it is. But if you want to judge it's validity, you have to base it off it's source, first cause, whatever, in this case Christ. Christ himself even said, "Not all those who call me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom." He and his disciples warned against imposters all the time (funny how those TV guys never seem to realize when he mentions wolves in sheeps clothing, he was referencing those who ask and plead and beg for money). He clarified that his disciples would be marked by specific behavior, not a label.

I talked before about this somewhere up above in a response to Brian, how divisions are not always a bad thing, and also how in some cases it is absolutely necessary (think Luther vs. the Catholic church of his day).

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

See post #334.

:idiot I really did totally miss that post. I might have to go back a page or two and make sure none of you called me any mean names...:Stupid

Hey, since my weekend is here, here's some really good broadcasts on the subject. I've heard them and others related to them multiple times. I think you will like them if you listen to them as they are not fluff and the speaker is exceptional, and masterful. Check them out and let me know what you think of them:
http://www.rzim.org/radio/archives.p...=detail&id=485
http://www.rzim.org/radio/archives.p...=detail&id=486

There's also a few good ones on Christ and his uniqueness and place in history. I'm not kidding, the guy is no slouch.

[smsmith40]

The war thing is a great example. Yes, murder is wrong, but so is a government not responding to injustice committed to it’s citizens. George Bush is a moral absolutist, he sees in black and white (proven by his use of words like evil, etc.), and I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But that doesn’t mean he is moral relative because of his actions post 9/11.

It becoming difficult to discuss this issue. You keep saying you are an absolutist but you keep making relativist points. You take two moral issues statements.

1. Murder is wrong
2. The state failing to protect its citizens is wrong

BY saying that Bush was right to prioritise number 2 over number 1, means you are comparing these two moral absolutes and assigning a priority. The logical statement you are making is that it is realtively more important for Bush avoid moral absolute number two than it is to avoid moral absolute number 1. This is a textbook case of moral relativity. Just because Bush uses religious imagery to describe moral issues does not make him an absolutist. It makes him an evangelist.

P.S I am also a relativist so I accept that it is more important for the state to protect its citizens, which is why I supported the war in Afghanistan. As a relativist I could even accept that it was a greater wrong to leave Sadam in power than it was to kill a significant number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians. An absolutist could not possibly have been favour of either action.