No Moral Absolutes? (page 3)

Jimmer

Now we've based morality on whether the consequenses are bad or not; harmful or not. Who determines that? What is the yardstick to be used?
Harmful actions and bad consequenses are in the mind of the beholder; subjective at best.
HOW DO YOU KNOW that the consequenses are harmful or bad? What is the foundation for this moral absolute on your part?
No matter what stand you take, you must start somewhere. But, again, who claims to be the judge/dictator of that point? You?

Seeker

With some actions, consequences can be subjective, yes. But with the important matters, where real harm can be done, the consequences are apparent to all. Sometimes it takes a while for society to notice those bad consequences, but it eventually figures it out and changes accordingly.

lisaBObeesa

Questor and Rex:

C.S. Lewis changed my sceptical mind.

-LisaBobeesa

joelbear

Morality is pretty simple.

Don't hurt others. I think this is a natural form of morality and I think that is why we inherently know through our conscience what we shouldn't do to others.

However, man has perverted this natural sense of unity and morality by introducing millions of manmade moral rules that fit group, country, cultural agendas. This confuses the issue.

Jesus said it best at Matthew 7:12. Too bad we can't just chunk the rest of the Bible, this scripture is the only one we really need.

hugs

Joel

Rex B13

Hi Alirobbi,
We are arguing a philosophical point and it just so happens that it concerns homosexuality and it's distant relationship to pedeophilia. Heterosexuality also contains the same issue and could provide the same example.
We all sin and ALL sin is equal in God's eyes. My intent is not to pick on homosexuality. I also posted material from a friend who argues that NAMBLA has the same right to declare it's views as valid in a society that rejects moral absolutes. A society that rejects God's sovereignty.
Rex

Rex B13

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

It is the whole point! You claim that morality is subjective but deny the right of those who have a different view of morality to practice their moral code.
As the poster said, "you cannot have it both ways."
If you want morality you must have an established norm that transends human authority and includes God's soverignty. Otherwise what you get is a changing morality that grows more extreme until their is a event that arrests it's course.
Often the event is a fall of a civilization.

>With some actions, consequences can be subjective, yes. But with the important matters, where real harm can be done, the consequences are apparent to all. Sometimes it takes a while for society to notice those bad consequences, but it eventually figures it out and changes accordingly.

Where does that put my ancient greek example? People are still promoting the subjugation of young boys to adult desires and with your brand of subjective morality they have every right to press the issue. NAMBLA keeps coming home like a "chicken to roost".

>

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.

Very few? Are you really sure of that.

>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 contend that to do nothing is better, just because nothing designed fits your perfect ACLU stamp of approval image? Got to run, we'll talk more later. As far as focus goes, you do need to check and see what rhetoric and nisinformation that tou have swallowed. One big one is the idea that some here accept is that "sexual persuasion is 'genetic'." That is the biggest lie promoted by both the Gay Lib movement and NAMBLA.
Rex

dedalus

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

Wow, what a convincing rebuttal. I guess there are some contexts in which molesting prepubescent virgins is okay! Eh, Rex?

Dedalus

hawkaw

) I was just wondering how anyone who believes that morality is subjective can actually take a stand against pedophilia?
WHY is it any worse than homosexuality or lesbianism?

You idiot - you don't know!!!!! You really dont do you.

PEDOPHILIA IS ABOUT CONTOL - YOU MANIPULATE AND CONTROL SOMEONE ELSE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX IDIOT

CONTROL OVER AN INNOCENT HUMAN WHO CAN"T DEFEND HIM/HERSELF

ITS JUST LIKE RAPE!!!!!

ARE YOU THAT STUPID??????

Homesexuality et. al are behavours.

hawk

alirobbi

Rex,

Yes I know this is a philosophical discussion but you are linking homosexuality to pedophilia. The point I was making in my post was this, you can not compare one to the other. Just because someone is a homosexual doesn’t mean they are going molest a child anymore then all fundamentalist are going to picket funerals of gays or visit prostitutes or steal money from the people who believe in them.

You like so many other fundamentalists, try and use the comparison of homosexuals with pedophiles to scare people and keep them in fear in order to get society to live by your moral code and your code only. You say no one should judge you. That they do not have the right, yet you continually make moral judgements on anyone who does not agree with your way of thinking.

Well I guess we all should continually compare you to the likes of Fred Phelps and the others I mentioned. That we should prejudge you according to their behavior. Would this be fair? That was my point Rex and I have no doubt that you got my point. You just didn’t want to acknowledge the point I was making.

Rex B13

Rex,
Yes I know this is a philosophical discussion but you are linking homosexuality to pedophilia. The point I was making in my post was this, you can not compare one to the other. Just because someone is a homosexual doesn’t mean they are going molest a child anymore then all fundamentalist are going to picket funerals of gays or visit prostitutes or steal money from the people who believe in them.

And my point is that relative or subjective moral laws are a contradiction and eventually results in the lowest common denominator being the norm for society. I don't know of any of the above occurances. BTW, A favorite activity here is to blame Christ for the sins perpetrated by people claiming to follow Him and also a lack of udnerstanding that becoming a Christian does not result in sinlessness.

>You like so many other fundamentalists, try and use the comparison of homosexuals with pedophiles to scare people and keep them in fear in order to get society to live by your moral code and your code only.

Nope, not at all. I will minister to anyone who comes to church seeking understanding and forgiveness. Homosexuality is no greater sin than gossiping or anything else. "My' moral code is not "mine", it is scriptural.

>You say no one should judge you. That they do not have the right, yet you continually make moral judgements on anyone who does not agree with your way of thinking.

Nope, I judge ONLY in a scriptural view, not of my own opinion. I can and do make mistakes though, for I am no better than any other human being. I DO try to let the Holy Spirit mold me into being more Christlike but He has a big job there! ;-)

>ell I guess we all should continually compare you to the likes of Fred Phelps and the others I mentioned. That we should prejudge you according to their behavior. Would this be fair? That was my point Rex and I have no doubt that you got my point. You just didn’t want to acknowledge the point I was making.

Sure, generalities are never wholly accurate. My point is still that in a world of subjective morality, anything goes because there is NO BASIS for morality without a sovereign God to layout those principals.
We have been stirring the wind for decades now we are reaping the whirlwind. Western civilization has begun a long, steady, downward spiral and it will not be arrested until the majority turn back to God.
Rex
Rex

No Moral Absolutes?

Share this