No Moral Absolutes?

by Rex B13 31 Replies latest jw friends

hippikon

Hippo the Dippo :
Is that a scientific observation. Sorry can’t nominate you for a Nobel prize unless you make public your lab notes. (Not that we think your cheating mind)
dedalus

I've only skimmed this thread, so I apologize if I'm being redundant, but:
Isn't the Bible the most morally subjective code there is? Whatever God does is morally correct, simply because he does it. Thou shalt not murder, unless God does it himself or changes his mind and tells you to do it. Incest is wrong ... except in certain situations. Be loving and patient and considerate to your neighbors ... unless you're told to hack them up and take their virgin daughters for your own private use.
What do ya say, Rex?
Dedalus
Rex B13

Dedalus,
You're making the common mistake of over-simplifying scriture, which robs it of the all-important context.
Rex
Rex B13

Seeker,
Some general thoughts:
The A.P.A. HAD STUDIES that claimed to exonerate pedeophiles from the 'sick list'.
Since when is the 'net any authority on anything at all? Have you ever been to the library or is this medium your main teacher?
Why is it wrong to filter out dangerous sites to those who are too immature too handle corruption that turns adults into porn addicts?
You cannot claim the moral highground because I accept the Bible as the word of God. There is NO moral highground without His setting the tone.
From a friend on another list:
"What age is underage? And what dictates that age as underage? This is the point i've made with G..... You feel that homosexuality is not immoral.
At one time the majority did but in the past maybe 15 years the majority has now swung and changed. The new MTV generation now is the majority and finds homosexuality as merely an acceptable alternative lifestyle. So where does the alternatives stop? Will pedophilia in another 15 years become an acceptable alternative? What will be the standard to dictate what age is underage. I can't remember clearly but i think there was a man who had a relationship with a 13 year old boy and now i fighting in court for this activity as an accepted relationship. The premise NAMBLA makes is that if "we are gay or homosexual genetically than this means from birth we are genetically pre-disposed to homosexuality. If this is the case at what point does the genetically pre-disposed homosexual realize their sexuality"? Well one of the arguing points is when the person becomes sexually active. And when does a boy or girl become sexually active determines when they are aware of their genetic make-up. If this is so than it is possible for a consentment by a boy sexually at his/her realization of their sexuality. So therefore can a man and a boy have a sexual relationship and it be acceptable? A sexual relationship is a sexual relationship whether it is with other 13 year old boys or a 36 year old male. Age no longer is a determinate for sexual activity because it is an individual choice as to when a person decides to venture into their sexual active lifestyle. It is that persons choice whom her/his partners will or should be as well. There are laws even for heterosexuals to consent marriage for adults and children as early as 16 years of age and in some states 14. So what age is the deternminate cannot be established except by the choice of the boy/girl as to their own ventures of sexual activity.
I personally am against the whole thing since i have a theistic concept of morality but an agnostic cannot fight against such logic in the face of subjective morality. NAMBLA has a strong argument in a subjective moral world without a theistic outlook. NAMBLA is the subjectivists/agnostics morality coming home and slapping them in the face and there ain't nothing agnostics/subjecivists can do about it. Diss God and your own diss comes back at ya from another angle. Their is no morality without a supreme moral lawgiver. It all goes in the toilet when you eliminate God."
That argument shreds your argument Seeker. Let's nail the lid to the coffin:
"The problem with evil without a theistic outlook
Evil is subjective to a person's personal view. Evil truly is not existent. Evil is merely an imagined view by each individual pushing their personal morality upon another. Tolerance is subjective to each person's personal morality. Without God their is no law of universal evil. Evil is merely a concensus agreement of the majority over the minority. The minority's views of what is evil are suppresses while the majority's view reign.
Proof is F....'s views here. If I were a theist: from my theistic outlook i am forced to accept the conditions set out by my lawgiver whom is God. He sets standards for me andd i merely comply because of who and what he is. He holds a superior position to myself and i submit to his authority and person as the universal lawgiver, therefore my view is conditioned upon his demands. While F.... or G.... can deny his demands and merely go spouting their personal morality. Now i dont know what G.....'s views are concerning homosexuality or bi-sexuality but he certainly deems homosexual pedophilia as wrong in HIS personal morality. But what happens now if an ex-JW NAMBLA advocate comes to this list? What happens if someone is on this list and believes it is moral to have a sexual relationship with a consenting child? Now this person will defend their PERSONAL MORALITY vigorously. It becomes a mere battle of wills and personal morality's of which only the majority will win or dominate. The minority which in this case would be the incumbent NAMBLA ex-JW member whom may join this list or could be present silently would than have none tolerant of their views on this list. So in the name of tolerance and without God we have the same scenario. Someone's views are not being tolerated and another's views are evil by personal individuals who carry no authority have a consensus. The question then becomes, "WHO ARE YOU TO PUSH YOUR PERSONAL MORALITY ON ME?" Without God none can give a good answer for such, save they may have a consensus backing them which could change in 20 years and they would wind up in left field. Without God there is no true morality! Without God none can answer that big question in all caps above justifiably!"

That's exactly what you are doing, Seeker.
_______________
"You fail to realize that the universal lawgiver is the dictator of what is good and bad and as his creation we are to conform or suffer the onsequences. For the production of the human race he dictated incest as beneficial for a brief time only to populate and
withheld birth defects. He can do that because he is God and i am not. For the sake of his people's survival in a wilderness he allowed murder. He can do that because he is God and has superior authority and make up than I.
He can and does ditate what is right for us as his creation and what is wrong. He can do that because he can stare death in the face an know what it is! As i stated in my earlier post he knows everything!
A lack of submission to his will brings suffering and has promulgated the ghetto we now live is called Earth! A Ghetto is always made by it's residents. I as a JW spent a great deal of my time witnessing in Southeast WASH DC. You should see it. These guys in DC Gov't keep
putting up nice garden apartments with all the trimmings and the people keep tearing them down so they in the end look like sewer crack infested buildings, dank and dirty. People make it a Ghetto not the DC Govt!
Agnostics want to blame God for their Ghetto they created!
Choices are you can keep it lavish and care for it or destroy it and agnostics destroy it and then point at the Govt/God an blame them. Justlike a bunch of strung out junkies in Ghetto who keep blaming everyone for their adictions and their places and their poverty. Laws are changed constantly by the US Gov't that sometimes override old laws. Old laws are abolished because they benefit people. Does this make the old laws bad, No! Old laws served their purpose for benefiting persons for that time. It's called progress and laws have to be changed for progress and this doesn't make old laws as evil or bad. God changes laws to aid mankind's progression and to overcompensate for his inadequacies.
> Is hetrosexuality always "right"- no in cases such as rape, or an abusive marriage. What determines whether hetrosexuality is "right" or "wrong" in these cases? What about pedophilia then? The same processes should be used to determine this - and when that is done it is clear that pedophillia could never be "right".
_________
Bologna! Once homosexuality is termed as right and it basically has now than the pedophiles can step up and stand up for their rights based upon the same standards the homosexual movement is using. Using the very same process! I think i clearly enumerated what that is on
previous posts. NAMBLA has a strong case using the homosexual agenda which is using the idea that sexuality is a genetic predisposition.
(a very big piece of misinformation!)
> Agnosticism does not make a person immoral or unethical.
_______________
I didnt say it did. But it certainly enables and supports immorality. An agnostic can be a moral person by biblical standards. I know of a good friened of mine that was an agnostic that passed last year. I spoke at his funeral and he was one of the most wonderful people i've
ever encountered. He fought for those that were oppressed an was quite a civil activist. But agnosticism still fails in addresing evil at it's very basic form. It has no solution for evil. Evil is some subjective choice made by the minority at least until the minority becomes the dominant culture. So your agnosticism cannot solve as to the evils of pedophilia or necrophilia. Those things for now are considered evils of the off brand weirdo but what happens when the weirdos take over the world? In the roman culture bestiality and pedophilia we're accepted forms of sexuality by an empire! Not so weird for the consensus than was it?
What happens if America or russia becomes another Rome? So once again the question begs, "Who are YOU to push YOUR PERSONAL morality upon me?" You're a nobody, just another human, someone whom by nature is my equal nothing less and nothing more! All you have is a consensus and what will happen if i take that away from you? Your truth is no longer truth!
Your intolerance is now no longer tolerable. The only rational solution for evil is a theistic outlook which has someone whom can answer that question which requires no qualification. Only
God can dare to say, "Who are you to question me the Supreme lawgiver who is better than you! I know what is best for i made you! If you have the answer than do tell me what they are!"
(from my friend, Gus)
Go ahead, Seeker, dig yourself another hole and prove my point to the entire post!
Rex
lisaBObeesa

"On certain levels we do: you and I both agree that to kill one another is wrong."
My question is this: Why do we all agree that to kill someone is wrong? Or more to the point: Why do we all agree that causing harm to another is wrong? Doesn't just that agreement alone point to some universal law outside ourselves that we all try to follow?
--LisaBObeesa
Quester

LisaBObeesa wrote:
"My question is this: Why do we all agree that
to kill someone is wrong? Or more to the point:
Why do we all agree that causing harm to another
is wrong? Doesn't just that agreement alone point
to some universal law outside ourselves that we
all try to follow?"
Good point.
C. S. Lewis develops this thought at length
in his book, "Mere Christianity." He has
some very good reasoning points for the
existence of God.
Quester
Rex B13

Amen, I see that some here are getting the point that I am trying to make to Seeker. C.S. Lewis is just about required reading for any who want a deeper understanding of Christianity.
Rex
Seeker

Seeker,
Some general thoughts:
The A.P.A. HAD STUDIES that claimed to exonerate pedeophiles from the 'sick list'.

And this has WHAT to do with me, I ask you once again?
Since when is the 'net any authority on anything at all? Have you ever been to the library or is this medium your main teacher?
When did I say anything about the Net? I said I had read studies, and you attack the Net. Focus a little. Of course I have been to the library and of course I know that not everything on the Net is worth reading. Haven't you been reading my suggestions to sf? Haven't you learned from our lectures to you about the garbage you dredge up from the Net?
Why is it wrong to filter out dangerous sites to those who are too immature too handle corruption that turns adults into porn addicts?
That's a very loaded question, for most children are reading porn these days and yet very few will grow up to be porn addicts. One does not automatically lead to the other any more than trying some alcohol will automatically lead to alcoholism.
As for filters, they don't work, kids can get around them, they block non-pornographic material including political material the filtering companies don't like, and they violate the constitution. Other than that, they are great.
You cannot claim the moral highground because I accept the Bible as the word of God. There is NO moral highground without His setting the tone.
Of course I can claim the moral high ground if your God is immoral. He is.
From a friend on another list:
"What age is underage? And what dictates that age as underage? This is the point i've made with G..... You feel that homosexuality is not immoral.
At one time the majority did but in the past maybe 15 years the majority has now swung and changed. The new MTV generation now is the majority and finds homosexuality as merely an acceptable alternative lifestyle. So where does the alternatives stop? Will pedophilia in another 15 years become an acceptable alternative?
Huh? What is the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, other than in your own mind? And what does any of this have to do with me? I have only been discussing my views on morality, and you've been throwing society's ideas of morality ever since.
What will be the standard to dictate what age is underage. I can't remember clearly but i think there was a man who had a relationship with a 13 year old boy and now i fighting in court for this activity as an accepted relationship. The premise NAMBLA makes is that if "we are gay or homosexual genetically than this means from birth we are genetically pre-disposed to homosexuality. If this is the case at what point does the genetically pre-disposed homosexual realize their sexuality"? Well one of the arguing points is when the person becomes sexually active. And when does a boy or girl become sexually active determines when they are aware of their genetic make-up. If this is so than it is possible for a consentment by a boy sexually at his/her realization of their sexuality. So therefore can a man and a boy have a sexual relationship and it be acceptable? A sexual relationship is a sexual relationship whether it is with other 13 year old boys or a 36 year old male. Age no longer is a determinate for sexual activity because it is an individual choice as to when a person decides to venture into their sexual active lifestyle. It is that persons choice whom her/his partners will or should be as well. There are laws even for heterosexuals to consent marriage for adults and children as early as 16 years of age and in some states 14. So what age is the deternminate cannot be established except by the choice of the boy/girl as to their own ventures of sexual activity.
I personally am against the whole thing since i have a theistic concept of morality but an agnostic cannot fight against such logic in the face of subjective morality. NAMBLA has a strong argument in a subjective moral world without a theistic outlook. NAMBLA is the subjectivists/agnostics morality coming home and slapping them in the face and there ain't nothing agnostics/subjecivists can do about it. Diss God and your own diss comes back at ya from another angle. Their is no morality without a supreme moral lawgiver. It all goes in the toilet when you eliminate God."
That argument shreds your argument Seeker. Let's nail the lid to the coffin:
No, it has no bearing on my argument. I do no harm. If having sex with a 13-year-old would cause him or her harm, it's wrong. I have nothing to say on homosexuality since I'm not one.
"The problem with evil without a theistic outlook
Evil is subjective to a person's personal view. Evil truly is not existent.
Incorrect. Evil is causing harm. Morality means to avoid causing harm.
Evil is merely an imagined view by each individual pushing their personal morality upon another.
Incorect. The effect of our actions are not imagined. Those actions that lead to bad effects are immoral as decided by society, even if individuals abrogate their responsibility to lead moral lives.
Tolerance is subjective to each person's personal morality.
Incorrect. Society steps in when individuals choose to be immoral, by general consensus.
Without God their is no law of universal evil. Evil is merely a concensus agreement of the majority over the minority. The minority's views of what is evil are suppresses while the majority's view reign.
Fortunately, the majority and minority agree on the big things. Only the little things, such as your repeated focus on homosexuality, are disagreements. I say "little" since that doesn't affect you directly. You merely find it distasteful to see it in others, even if it has nothing to do with your family.
Proof is F....'s views here. If I were a theist: from my theistic outlook i am forced to accept the conditions set out by my lawgiver whom is God. He sets standards for me andd i merely comply because of who and what he is. He holds a superior position to myself and i submit to his authority and person as the universal lawgiver, therefore my view is conditioned upon his demands.
And here we see the superiority of the atheist's morality who does what is right simply because it is the right thing to do, not because somebody stronger than him is making him do it.
While F.... or G.... can deny his demands and merely go spouting their personal morality.
And atheists often lead very moral lives.
Now i dont know what G.....'s views are concerning homosexuality or bi-sexuality but he certainly deems homosexual pedophilia as wrong in HIS personal morality. But what happens now if an ex-JW NAMBLA advocate comes to this list? What happens if someone is on this list and believes it is moral to have a sexual relationship with a consenting child? Now this person will defend their PERSONAL MORALITY vigorously. It becomes a mere battle of wills and personal morality's of which only the majority will win or dominate. The minority which in this case would be the incumbent NAMBLA ex-JW member whom may join this list or could be present silently would than have none tolerant of their views on this list. So in the name of tolerance and without God we have the same scenario. Someone's views are not being tolerated and another's views are evil by personal individuals who carry no authority have a consensus. The question then becomes, "WHO ARE YOU TO PUSH YOUR PERSONAL MORALITY ON ME?" Without God none can give a good answer for such, save they may have a consensus backing them which could change in 20 years and they would wind up in left field. Without God there is no true morality! Without God none can answer that big question in all caps above justifiably!"
That's exactly what you are doing, Seeker.
No, and here we have the main problem you fail to see: I am not pushing my morality on anyone. I have my morality, you have your morality, go in peace. The example given is incorrect, for the ex-JW who wants to have sex with a consenting child is free to think that by himself. Only when he tries to push that on others will people object.
That is precisely why we get mad at you, Rex: You would push your morality on us, instead of just quietly living your own lives.
You stand condemned by those comments, not me, for I'm not pushing anything on you.

_______________
"You fail to realize that the universal lawgiver is the dictator of what is good and bad and as his creation we are to conform or suffer the onsequences. For the production of the human race he dictated incest as beneficial for a brief time only to populate and
withheld birth defects. He can do that because he is God and i am not. For the sake of his people's survival in a wilderness he allowed murder. He can do that because he is God and has superior authority and make up than I.
He can and does ditate what is right for us as his creation and what is wrong. He can do that because he can stare death in the face an know what it is! As i stated in my earlier post he knows everything!
So much for using one's whole mind -- just shut up and do what God says. How appealing!
A lack of submission to his will brings suffering and has promulgated the ghetto we now live is called Earth! A Ghetto is always made by it's residents. I as a JW spent a great deal of my time witnessing in Southeast WASH DC. You should see it. These guys in DC Gov't keep
putting up nice garden apartments with all the trimmings and the people keep tearing them down so they in the end look like sewer crack infested buildings, dank and dirty. People make it a Ghetto not the DC Govt!
Oh brother is this wrong! The actual reasons are far more complicated, with blame on both sides. But if you are going to listen to right-wing propaganda without exercising your God-given mind, there isn't much I can do.
Agnostics want to blame God for their Ghetto they created!
How about blaming Him for not fixing the conditions that lead to ghettos?
Choices are you can keep it lavish and care for it or destroy it and agnostics destroy it and then point at the Govt/God an blame them.
ROFL! Is he suggesting that the residents of ghettos are agnostics? I would suggest, from my days of preaching there, that the majority are Christians!
Justlike a bunch of strung out junkies in Ghetto who keep blaming everyone for their adictions and their places and their poverty. Laws are changed constantly by the US Gov't that sometimes override old laws. Old laws are abolished because they benefit people. Does this make the old laws bad, No! Old laws served their purpose for benefiting persons for that time. It's called progress and laws have to be changed for progress and this doesn't make old laws as evil or bad. God changes laws to aid mankind's progression and to overcompensate for his inadequacies.
Spare me the right-wing political rhetoric. The reality is so much more complicated than that it's not worth discussing.
> Is hetrosexuality always "right"- no in cases such as rape, or an abusive marriage. What determines whether hetrosexuality is "right" or "wrong" in these cases? What about pedophilia then? The same processes should be used to determine this - and when that is done it is clear that pedophillia could never be "right".
_________
Bologna! Once homosexuality is termed as right and it basically has now than the pedophiles can step up and stand up for their rights based upon the same standards the homosexual movement is using.
No, they can't. I explained this to you already, Rex. Adults can make choices that children cannnot, at least without harm.
Using the very same process! I think i clearly enumerated what that is on
previous posts. NAMBLA has a strong case using the homosexual agenda which is using the idea that sexuality is a genetic predisposition.
(a very big piece of misinformation!)
I have nothing to do with NAMBLA. Take this up with someone who does.

> Agnosticism does not make a person immoral or unethical.
_______________
I didnt say it did. But it certainly enables and supports immorality. An agnostic can be a moral person by biblical standards. I know of a good friened of mine that was an agnostic that passed last year. I spoke at his funeral and he was one of the most wonderful people i've
ever encountered. He fought for those that were oppressed an was quite a civil activist. But agnosticism still fails in addresing evil at it's very basic form. It has no solution for evil. Evil is some subjective choice made by the minority at least until the minority becomes the dominant culture. So your agnosticism cannot solve as to the evils of pedophilia or necrophilia. Those things for now are considered evils of the off brand weirdo but what happens when the weirdos take over the world? In the roman culture bestiality and pedophilia we're accepted forms of sexuality by an empire! Not so weird for the consensus than was it?
Cultures get out of control, then they return to the norm. It's all cycles. There isn't much to be done about it as it tends to take place on historical levels, not day-to-day. So worry about your own morality, and I will worry about my morality, and we thus help the society in which we live.
What happens if America or russia becomes another Rome? So once again the question begs, "Who are YOU to push YOUR PERSONAL morality upon me?"
There's that misconception again. Nobody is pushing my morality on anyone, and neither should you push your morality upon me.

You're a nobody, just another human, someone whom by nature is my equal nothing less and nothing more! All you have is a consensus and what will happen if i take that away from you? Your truth is no longer truth!
Nonsense. It was quite easy for early human society to notice actions that produced bad results. That's where taboos came from, and they still exist today. That is truth.
Your intolerance is now no longer tolerable.
Only if you try to push your intolerance on someone else. As long as you want to sit in your corner and be as intolerant as you want, no one will care.
The only rational solution for evil is a theistic outlook which has someone whom can answer that question which requires no qualification. Only God can dare to say, "Who are you to question me the Supreme lawgiver who is better than you! I know what is best for i made you! If you have the answer than do tell me what they are!"
(from my friend, Gus)
Gus is totally wrong, as I explained in detail above. There is a better third way which is for society to notice that which causes harm to others and then to avoid those actions.
Go ahead, Seeker, dig yourself another hole and prove my point to the entire post!
I have dug no holes, and I do no do so now. I merely answered your questions with my own thoughts on morality. In return, you have been throwing the book at me. Fine, you want to preach, preach to someone else. I've explained how a person with God can lead very moral lives, and where that morality comes from. If you want to obsess over homosexuals, or pedophiles, or people living in ghettos, talk to someone else. I've been very patient with you in answering each point you bring out. But in this reply I see you have gone right back to the beginning with the same old points I already answered. You're not listening, or you don't like what I've answered and you ignoring what I say. Fine, ignore someone else for a while. I've explained myself, and now I'm done.
Seeker

My question is this: Why do we all agree that to kill someone is wrong? Or more to the point: Why do we all agree that causing harm to another is wrong? Doesn't just that agreement alone point to some universal law outside ourselves that we all try to follow?

No, Lisa, it merely points to actions and observed consequences. We all agree that to kill someone is wrong because it always caused bad consequences. Thus human society learned not to do it.
alirobbi

Rex,
I don't know why I am amazed at seeing you here once again comparing all homosexuals to NAMBLA. We had this same conversation over on the old H20 a year ago. Comparing all homosexuals to NAMBLA is like comparing all fundalmentalist Christians to Fred Phelps.
Following your line of reasoning, I can only deduce that you would attend funerals of murdered homosexuals with picket signs saying "No Tears For Queers" and "God Hates Fags" I can determine that you would picket funerals of people who have died from Aids with the same signs, even though they may not have been gay and would do so with much glee and with no apologies to the families.
Also following your line of reasoning, I would determine that you, like Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Baker must visit prostitutes and steal money from people who believed in you.
WW, I mean Rex, you agreed with me on H20 that this is wrong so why do you continue to do this now? I'll give you one thing, I have only ever read the posts here. I had decided not to post and just to read and learn but you helped me come out of the closet and post. (Pun intended)
robbi

No Moral Absolutes?

Share this