Yes.May I quote you on that?
I'm sure you'll strawman it though, but I'll be there waiting.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes.May I quote you on that?
You're not. But you can't use invented details that you can't support from the text.
I find it rather odd that God doesn't provide a lamb for Abraham to sacrifice in Isaac's stead, but rather a ram. Why doesn't God give him a lamb to sacrifice? This makes a bit more sense in light of the New Testament, wherein Jesus is called the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).No evidence in the bible. Nice try.
So that's it? You just shout Euthyphro dilemma and you're done? I suppose you think this passes as intellectual rigor?Excellent. Euthyphro dilemma, anyone?
Actually, yes it is. For both ease of reference and difficulty of misrepresentation, I'll reproduce what originally I wrote (to Gadarene, by the way, not to you):Actually no, what you're doing is charitably known as "making stuff up." Not quite the same. Until you can supply support for your fiction, your interpretation of what went on with Abraham and Isaac is no more valid than mine.
But don't forget that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. If to issue an order is to intend that the recipient of that order understand what he or she is ordered to do, then I think it follows that to receive an order from God is necessarily to understand what one is ordered to do (since God cannot fail at what he intends to accomplish).
Addressed to my straw man double, of course.Don't sell yourself short - you're doing pretty well so far.
I am not defending what the Israelites did. But we should also remember that these people didn't have the learning that we moderns enjoy, and for this reason, the severity of their offense MIGHT (I cannot emphasize this strongly enough) be mitigated somewhat.Right. All those women they raped, all those little children they murdered, all those little infants they skewered. Such monsters. Are you assuming the Israelites had no sense of morals? Wow.
So you're saying that there's no plausible way to interpret this passage except to say that God exists and that he ordered the extermination of the Amalekites? This would make you a dystheist, it seems. Interesting.Where is any evidence that it should be taken any other way?
He didn't order the genocide of the Amalekites (so I say), although he evidently was believed by the ancient Israelites to have ordered it.Great. So god orders the genocide of the Amalekites just to make a point? Murdering all those little infants to make a point?
Christians believe that the Incarnation is the most important event that has ever occurred in all of history, and for this reason the four canonical Gospels are the most important books of all of Christian Scripture. In fact, in many Christian churches (my own included), only the book of the Gospels (and not the entirety of Scripture) is placed upon the Holy Altar, and the Gospel lesson is the only Scripture reading for which the entire congregation is expected to stand in reverence (if able) during the liturgy.I mean, I'm perfectly happy that you've decided to abandon the bible as a reliable guide to, well, pretty much anything, if you can just decide arbitrarily that any story in it is just a lesson. I love that one about the resurrection. What's that a lesson for?
In some ways, yes. This is not an inherent quality though. The word 'respect' derives meaning from us and it is subjective. It is a value we individually assign to others based on our evaluation of their character. I might find person X worthy of a lot of respect whereas you might find them worthy of only a small amount of respect or vice versa.
It can also be enhanced or lost through action.
No. They then lose respect.
All it tells me is that you view God as worthy of obedience inherently. It does not tell me why you view him worthy of this or why certain actions cannot make him lose the title.
Does not matter to me. Shouldn't matter to anyone. He is still a sentient being. He can still make decisions that we can judge.
By this reasoning the statement "Murder is wrong" is just as objective because it applies to all and in equal measures. Murder is wrong leaves no room for interpretation or differing culture. It would apply to all in even measures.
You might very well be consistent all of the time if you say "Whatever God does is right and we should follow him" but there's no argument there that makes that moral. We only have your assertion that it is.
No.
A mass murdering rapist is though. Frightening to know you're merely one delusion away from being one.
This is a circular argument.
How is it universal?
I could assert anything that would be the same for everyone but that would not make it objective.
Yes, so you are basically all about power. You just incorrectly conflate it with morality.
Yes, that is the poison of theistic pseudo-morality. It makes otherwise normal people say wicked things and worse it makes them proud of their own vileness. I mean, honestly, you with complete nonchalance declared you'd be a mass murderer if God told you to.
Yes you do. According to you nothing is wrong because of the consequences of the action but because God has forbidden it. Nothing is right because of the action either but only because God endorses it. That is nothing if not directly saying that the consequences of your actions don't at all matter.
You're not just saying it hypothetically. You've spent the last several pages telling me you outright do that.
How fortunate for all of us that he is currently benign to you. I am genuinely scared for others if you begin to hear a voice you interpret as God.
Do I need to add to this? It speaks for itself.
Might equals right.
Simply asserting that because something is consistent that it is objective is just ridiculous. That would mean if someone universalised anything it would be objective.
No they don't. Not all morality is prescribed by law. Many forms of behaviour deemed unethical is entirely legal. People have their own self-restraints as well that derive from their own conscience.
Additionally there are substantial differences between you and me regarding why we follow moral ideals. I follow them because I accept them. You follow them just because you're told to.
It is completely accurate. No-one alive has ever or will ever wish for an act to be inflicted upon them without their consent, or suffer harm upon themselves without their consent.
Yes, that is why the operative word is consent. A [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] may enjoy certain fetishes but that's fine, that is his or her prerogative.
No, it requires people to understand when someone else asks them to stop doing X to them because it is inflicting against their personal freedom.
If you are asking me if I support murder, the answer is no. If you are asking me whether I believe he was wrong, the answer is yes. I do not know that he was wrong, but I believe that he was.Also it is of note that your presumed morality is one that requires each agent to know what God wills. In the 1970's the UK was blighted by a serial killer named Peter Sutcliffe. He killed thirteen women and in his defense claimed God ordered him to do it. What do you say to that? That he was wrong? How would you know? How would he know? This is also not the only time historically this kind of thing has happened.
I call that freedom as well, but I also call it subjective. How you consider it to be hateful to follow a loving God is beyond me. You presented a hypothetical in which God would not necessarily be loving, but as He is, He is loving. I am left to assume that you are referring to your hypothetical when gauging the superiority.I call that freedom. People deciding for themselves what paths are for them and what paths are not. That is superior in every way to the hateful idea that we should always just follow God.
I do not think that you actually intend for your moral system to rest on people telling each other what they do and do not consent to, and I do not think that you would even attempt to call this an objective morality.Yes I will.
For a start, they can tell me.
I would say that you had already acted immorally by attempting to engage in sex with someone without already knowing whether you had their consent or not.Some obvious answers would be attempting to have sex with them without their consent. I may not have known prior they were not interested but I would do soon afterwards.
This might be true sometimes but certainly not always. Additionally even if partially true it is nothing that cannot be rectified. You will need to give examples.
An objective morality does not depend on the consent of others. A moral action is moral even if no one consents. A morality that depends on consent is dependent upon interpretation, and it is not objective.All morality depends on the consent of others. It is a communal phenomena.
This is your opinion. I disagree.Your "morality" cannot be held to be under any sensible definition as moral.
Why is it nonsense? If Gods will is the basis for morality, your disagreement with His will must make you immoral. Why do you not see that?What a load of nonsense.
According to you in the event of God ordering mass murder my disagreement would make me immoral. Up is down, left is right and murder is righteous in your world.
Someone disagreeing with you does not make an infliction, but someone disagreeing with an action that you are already taking in regards to them does make an infliction. It is, according to your morality, an immoral action until you change course.Someone disagreeing with me on an issue does not constitute an infliction of pain, suffering or oppression from me. If I attempted by force to compel them to do something then that would be an infliction.
They have meaningful definitions, but they are not understood by all people in equal measures or in the same ways. Morality without obedience is not morality. Your morality, if you did not have obedience to it, would be of no use to you or anyone else.Only of course if you think pain, suffering and oppression have no meaningful definition. Of course given that you think morality is nothing but a singular self-obsessed obedience towards God I would not be surprised on that.
Respecting a persons right to run their own affairs is not an issue in question. You can respect a persons right to do as they please while insisting that everyone has the right. If rights collide, what happens? It is at that point that morality must dictate what is right. When two or more people have opposing views and those views do not allow for each to continue, one has to give way to the other. If one person believes that certain people are to be subjugated and another person believes that they are not to be subjugated, morality must determine who is right. If it does not, it is subjective. You attempt to account for individual differences, and by doing so, you force your morality into subjectivity. You cannot allow each person to determine right and wrong and expect to have an objective morality.Yes, I am. I am appealing to everyone's instincts.
Uh, yes I am. That is exactly what respecting people's right to run their own affairs and not have their liberty controlled by another is. I could do little more intellectually to account for individual differences.
I am sorry if you think that disagreement is not a form of suffering, as it clearly is. To some, liberty does involve totalitarianism. I think your absolute statements are incorrect.Yes, there are. Sorry. If you think suffering is equivalent to disagreement, you are wrong. If you think liberty involves totalitarianism, you are wrong.
Because of the limitation mentioned earlier, we will not agree here.That's not a common ground. It is only, at best (if true) reference to the fact that God exists and demands our attention. Do you even know what common ground means?
I suppose there is nothing left to be said here.You have claimed it and made a parody of objective morality. I do not know what else to say.
I am not sure that is the same type of assertion. If a system of morality has as its basis that which you will is right and if you willed that wearing blue is evil, wearing blue would be objectively wrong. It would not matter whether anyone disagreed with you, but you would have to believe in a being having the quality of worthiness of obedience. We know that it is not the case.No, it is assertive. The consistency is irrelevant.
I could declare that the colour blue is evil. It is a consistent claim. It does not change. Does not make it objective.
I disagree with it because it is subjective and reduces morality to nothing more than personal feelings.Why do you not agree with my proposed basis for morality?
No, just your definitions. Definitions of words are typically descriptive of how they are commonly used, not "pulled from thin air".It is.
If you understand that to be the source of all definitions, I did indeed.
So you are now redefining "notion" to what would, in common use, be "fact"?No, I do not think it is a fact that the Earth orbits the sun, but I fully agree that it cannot be proven. I do think that the notion is useful for sending space probes to other planets.
You do appear to be in it.Just because I see facts as proven tidbits and doubt our ability to achieve that level of certainty does not mean that I fail to see the utility of acting as if they are proven or as if they may be accurate. I am fully aware of the state of life for one who must live without certainty, and it is a useless state.
No, just your definitions. Definitions of words are typically descriptive of how they are commonly used, not "pulled from thin air".
So you are now redefining "notion" to what would, in common use, be "fact"?
You do appear to be in it.
How about not speaking of possibilities, but of probabilities? Everything might be possible, but of that said of everything relatively few things are probable.No sir. I am not in it any longer, but I remember it well. If you will stop suggesting that certainty has been achieved, I will stop suggesting that it has not. If we can speak of possibilities, I can accept anything.
How about not speaking of possibilities, but of probabilities? Everything might be possible, but of that said of everything relatively few things are probable.
We're worthy of rights.Max S Cherry said:Well I was hoping we could agree that humans are worthy of respect. At the least, I was hoping that you could understand what I mean when I say that God has a quality that I consider to be "worthy of obedience."
It matters to you because you care about who says something and not why or the what that something is. I care about the content of actions and not who commands them.It matters immensely, but because of the limitation mentioned above, it matters only to me.
That objective morality, by your own reasoning can exist in principle in a non-theistic context.I agree that the statement is objective. Is there a point you wish to make with it?
Actually beyond self-interest and wanting to avoid his wrath I'm not quite sure why you would do what God commanded no matter what.I am not trying to convince you that God is moral. I was explaining why I would do what God commanded, unless I failed Him. You do not believe that God possesses the qualities that I believe He has, so in light of that, we will not agree.
You let yourself be suckered in by delusion. You appease it, suggesting it could actually be real. That I consider rape and murder wrong at all times means that even if deluded, I would not do it.I hate to let you in on it, but we are all merely one delusion away from being one.
You said that it is objective because it is universal which is because it is objective because it is universal. This is circular.If you wish to know the answer to this question, all you need to do is stop separating the posts. I already told you why it is universal.
Because simply asserting something does not make it objective. If you are though agreeing with me here then you effectively concede your original point: Objective morality can by your own reasoning can exist independently of God.How would it not?
You saying that God is the "source of morality" is identical to you saying he is the "source of power". When you use the term "moral" you deprive it of all meaning.In my opinion, it just so happens that God is the source of power and the source of morality. So it is not incorrect.
So you'd believe. You've made that abundantly clear.And my actions would be morally correct.
It would be only correct to say that you consider one's motive in how they act as in line with God's will. The consequence to humanity is completely irrelevant to you.The consequences of my actions do matter, because they have to be in line with God's will.
The consequences towards humans suspected or known influence why I would support or condemn an act. My own moral assertions are directly influenced by what the implications towards the suffering of others are. Yours are not. You could not care less. The only thing that matters to you is whether God commands it.It is the same as with the morality you espouse. You oppose certain actions because the consequences would cause pain or suffering; therefore, your actions have to be in line with the principle that you should cause no pain or suffering. Why do you not see that this is the same?
The only reason you say murder is wrong is because you believe God has forbidden it. Same with rape, torture, theft and all forms of contemptible actions. The way you think has already detached it.I have not spent pages saying such. I have said that God's will is the basis for my morality. If God were different, I would have to detach the action, but it might be that, if God were different, I would be different as well. The detachment might be entirely unnecessary.
What a semantically useless statement, coming from you. You would always call God benevolent no matter what he decided to do. If he ordered the rape of all women you would still call him benevolent and call us fortunate.How fortunate for all of us that God is never benign but is always benevolent.
Yes, I just wanted your statement of allegiance to a potential "warring, vengeful" God was out there and in the open. I always did wonder both in fiction and reality how people would become so willingly stooges and right-hand men to obviously evil dictators and you're demonstrating to my horror the existence of that mentality.I already said that.
In the case of moral assertion? Nothing. I don't subscribe to the distinction of subjective vs. objective. Moral assertions are behavioural standards based on how we ought and ought not treat others. They can be no more objective that say, a favourite colour*.If it is universal, it is free from subjective interpretation, and in the case of morality, it creates the ought that you mentioned earlier. If that is not objective, how about you tell me what would make a thing objective.
Inform me precisely the distinction you're making between ethics and morality.I would venture to say that morality is untouched by the law. A behavior being deemed unethical has nothing to do with its being moral or not. People have consciences, and I do not know of anything that is more subjective.
No, you follow God for self-interest? It isn't clear why you accept God for reasons other than that. I am moral and can be moral at the expense of my own self-gain. That sir is what morality is actually about and the only time that it is actually meaningful.I follow them because I accept them. There is no difference between us in our reasons for following our moralities.
This comes across as semantically useless as the idea that atheists worship themselves, or worship hedonism. You're just invoking comparisons where they do not belong. I infer what I ought or ought not do through observation of how my behaviour could effect others and I do this taking into account individual needs and preferences. This is not to say that I always follow my understanding of it in this matter, but I certainly am influenced more times than not to do so.We are both told what to do. I am told by God, and you are told by yourself. Either of us is free to decide to not follow.
It is true by definition. No-one alive wants an act inflicted upon they do not like without their consent.Wow. You possess a lot of information. I will say no more on that.
Do you even know what a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is? Do you even know the difference between a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] receiving pain and a regular person receiving pain? A [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] might ask for some pain to be inflicted and thus would consent. A normal person would not.And you purpose to know this about a person without having ever spoken to the person. You purpose to know a great deal.
Intent matters. If you were doing something to someone that you did not know would hurt them then you were misinformed or ignorant. You can take a level of responsibility for that, of course. What matters is that you should stop when you know it is against their consent.If you are already doing X to them, you have acted immorally. You seem to have a post hoc morality.
Why?If you are asking me if I support murder, the answer is no. If you are asking me whether I believe he was wrong, the answer is yes. I do not know that he was wrong, but I believe that he was.
I consider it hateful to follow a "warring, vengeful" God which is what you'd say you'd be perfectly willing to do. I consider it hateful to defend rape and murder if endorsed by God.I call that freedom as well, but I also call it subjective. How you consider it to be hateful to follow a loving God is beyond me.
Meaningless.You presented a hypothetical in which God would not necessarily be loving, but as He is, He is loving.
This is true, but I'm always referring to your disgusting willingness to follow the hypothetical and why my morality is superior to yours concerning that.I am left to assume that you are referring to your hypothetical when gauging the superiority.
We already do this. In most secular nations such things as human rights exist which were built principally to eradicate systematic oppression of groups and individuals and allow them to forge their own paths in life.I do not think that you actually intend for your moral system to rest on people telling each other what they do and do not consent to, and I do not think that you would even attempt to call this an objective morality.
Sometimes this would be true. Not always. Making a pass at someone is not exactly immoral.I would say that you had already acted immorally by attempting to engage in sex with someone without already knowing whether you had their consent or not.
No, you need to give examples of how you could accidentally oppress someone to the point where you could not back down (as you seem to be suggesting).I need to give examples of how it can be rectified? I do not see any way for it to be rectified, because it cannot be rectified on a case by case basis. It has to be rectified for all people, or it is reduced to subjectivity again.
Then it cannot reasonably be called morality.An objective morality does not depend on the consent of others.
You use that word "moral". I do not think you have a meaning for it beyond power.A moral action is moral even if no one consents. A morality that depends on consent is dependent upon interpretation, and it is not objective.
Of course it is my opinion. Would you rather I argue another opinion?This is your opinion. I disagree.
Yet you haven't produced a substantial argument for why his will is the basis of morality. You've simply said that because it is consistent it is "objective" and yet any edict on anything can be just as equally consistent.Why is it nonsense? If Gods will is the basis for morality, your disagreement with His will must make you immoral. Why do you not see that?
Perhaps. Give examples please. Not sure what you mean by infliction.Someone disagreeing with you does not make an infliction, but someone disagreeing with an action that you are already taking in regards to them does make an infliction.
My moral understanding is designed to take into account the differences of individuals. Yours is not. Just because you have a binary outlook does not make yours credible.They have meaningful definitions, but they are not understood by all people in equal measures or in the same ways. Morality without obedience is not morality. Your morality, if you did not have obedience to it, would be of no use to you or anyone else.
It is for you. If God told you to murder anyone who was homosexual, you would regardless of their desires. What do you think of hell, by the way? Do you think all non-Christians are going to be tormented there forever?Respecting a persons right to run their own affairs is not an issue in question.
We work out a solution. Give examples.You can respect a persons right to do as they please while insisting that everyone has the right. If rights collide, what happens?
What kind of opposing views are you referring to?It is at that point that morality must dictate what is right. When two or more people have opposing views and those views do not allow for each to continue, one has to give way to the other.
Yes, we side with those that would be subjugated. This should be obvious. No-one wants to be subjugated. We can all infer rationally that none of us would like to have our rights removed and our freedoms limited and thus infer that we should not do it without sufficient and justified cause to others. This realisation in no way inhibits the right of potential oppressors. There is no right codified in rational legislation that grants individuals the right to subjugate others.If one person believes that certain people are to be subjugated and another person believes that they are not to be subjugated, morality must determine who is right.
Someone's right to run their own show ends when it inflicts upon the right to run their own show. This is not hard. This is 101 human rights.You attempt to account for individual differences, and by doing so, you force your morality into subjectivity. You cannot allow each person to determine right and wrong and expect to have an objective morality.
No, it isn't "clearly".I am sorry if you think that disagreement is not a form of suffering, as it clearly is.
Then it isn't liberty. By definition.To some, liberty does involve totalitarianism. I think your absolute statements are incorrect.
I will take that as a no, you don't know what common ground means.Because of the limitation mentioned earlier, we will not agree here.
I'll let the above lunacy stand on its own. Even if I had the mythical quality of "worthiness of obedience" it would not be right to ban or argue for the ban of the colour blue.I am not sure that is the same type of assertion. If a system of morality has as its basis that which you will is right and if you willed that wearing blue is evil, wearing blue would be objectively wrong. It would not matter whether anyone disagreed with you, but you would have to believe in a being having the quality of worthiness of obedience. We know that it is not the case.
You have not understand what I'm arguing then, at all. My moral understanding makes direct reference to the common ground in all human self-interest.I disagree with it because it is subjective and reduces morality to nothing more than personal feelings.
A belief is an opinion, or conviction; it may or may not be supportable by facts. A scientist may believe that humans share an ancestor with a carrot. That belief could be supported by the fact that humans and carrots share DNA.If you do not mind, will you please tell me what you understand the difference between "fact" and "belief" to be? Perhaps, I will agree, and we can move beyond this discussion of definitions.
If you are not going to use common convention, I can only take the meanings of the words you use from their context.Kindly forget that I used the word "notion." I have no desire to get into another definition dispute. Let us work out the first one before we move on to another. Agreed?
Conflating "fact" with "proven" is not "suggesting". What do you mean by "certainty"? Should I use "uncertainty"? That scientists can use this "uncertainty" to send a robotic vehicle over 2 billion miles, hit an orbital window about the size of a football field, and land a probe on the moon on another planet? That this "uncertainty" can be used to build the technology for the computer you are using to post at this web site?No sir. I am not in it any longer, but I remember it well. If you will stop suggesting that certainty has been achieved, I will stop suggesting that it has not. If we can speak of possibilities, I can accept anything.
You are yet to significantly substantiate it.
Actually beyond self-interest and wanting to avoid his wrath I'm not quite sure why you would do what God commanded no matter what.
You let yourself be suckered in by delusion. You appease it, suggesting it could actually be real. That I consider rape and murder wrong at all times means that even if deluded, I would not do it.
You said that it is objective because it is universal which is because it is objective because it is universal. This is circular.
Because simply asserting something does not make it objective. If you are though agreeing with me here then you effectively concede your original point: Objective morality can by your own reasoning can exist independently of God.
P.S: Speaking for myself, I don't frame morality as "subjective vs. objective". I find the entire distinction completely pointless.
You saying that God is the "source of morality" is identical to you saying he is the "source of power". When you use the term "moral" you deprive it of all meaning.
The consequence to humanity is completely irrelevant to you.
The consequences towards humans suspected or known influence why I would support or condemn an act. My own moral assertions are directly influenced by what the implications towards the suffering of others are. Yours are not. You could not care less. The only thing that matters to you is whether God commands it.
The only reason you say murder is wrong is because you believe God has forbidden it. Same with rape, torture, theft and all forms of contemptible actions. The way you think has already detached it.
What a semantically useless statement, coming from you. You would always call God benevolent no matter what he decided to do. If he ordered the rape of all women you would still call him benevolent and call us fortunate.
Any word you use to describe how good God is pointless. We already know where you stand on this.
Yes, I just wanted your statement of allegiance to a potential "warring, vengeful" God was out there and in the open. I always did wonder both in fiction and reality how people would become so willingly stooges and right-hand men to obviously evil dictators and you're demonstrating to my horror the existence of that mentality.
In the case of moral assertion? Nothing. I don't subscribe to the distinction of subjective vs. objective. Moral assertions are behavioural standards based on how we ought and ought not treat others. They can be no more objective that say, a favourite colour*.
*I await for Elioenai or perhaps even Max here to misinterpret this.
Inform me precisely the distinction you're making between ethics and morality.
No, you follow God for self-interest? It isn't clear why you accept God for reasons other than that. I am moral and can be moral at the expense of my own self-gain. That sir is what morality is actually about and the only time that it is actually meaningful.
This comes across as semantically useless as the idea that atheists worship themselves, or worship hedonism.
You're just invoking comparisons where they do not belong. I infer what I ought or ought not do through observation of how my behaviour could effect others and I do this taking into account individual needs and preferences.
It is true by definition. No-one alive wants an act inflicted upon they do not like without their consent.
Do you even know what a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is? Do you even know the difference between a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] receiving pain and a regular person receiving pain? A [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] might ask for some pain to be inflicted and thus would consent. A normal person would not.
Intent matters. If you were doing something to someone that you did not know would hurt them then you were misinformed or ignorant. You can take a level of responsibility for that, of course. What matters is that you should stop when you know it is against their consent.
Why?
If he was genuinely contacted by God you would be here vindicating him now. This is what is frightening.
I consider it hateful to follow a "warring, vengeful" God which is what you'd say you'd be perfectly willing to do. I consider it hateful to defend rape and murder if endorsed by God.
Meaningless.
If God demanded you to murder, rape and pillage you would still call him loving and you'd still do it.
We already do this. In most secular nations such things as human rights exist which were built principally to eradicate systematic oppression of groups and individuals and allow them to forge their own paths in life.
Sometimes this would be true. Not always. Making a pass at someone is not exactly immoral.
No, you need to give examples of how you could accidentally oppress someone to the point where you could not back down (as you seem to be suggesting).
Yet you haven't produced a substantial argument for why his will is the basis of morality. You've simply said that because it is consistent it is "objective" and yet any edict on anything can be just as equally consistent.
Perhaps. Give examples please. Not sure what you mean by infliction.
My moral understanding is designed to take into account the differences of individuals. Yours is not. Just because you have a binary outlook does not make yours credible.
It is for you. If God told you to murder anyone who was homosexual, you would regardless of their desires.
What do you think of hell, by the way? Do you think all non-Christians are going to be tormented there forever?
We work out a solution. Give examples.
What kind of opposing views are you referring to?
Yes, we side with those that would be subjugated. This should be obvious. No-one wants to be subjugated. We can all infer rationally that none of us would like to have our rights removed and our freedoms limited and thus infer that we should not do it without sufficient and justified cause to others. This realisation in no way inhibits the right of potential oppressors. There is no right codified in rational legislation that grants individuals the right to subjugate others.
Someone's right to run their own show ends when it inflicts upon the right to run their own show. This is not hard. This is 101 human rights.
Then it isn't liberty. By definition.
Do words actually mean anything to you?
I will take that as a no, you don't know what common ground means.
I'll let the above lunacy stand on its own. Even if I had the mythical quality of "worthiness of obedience" it would not be right to ban or argue for the ban of the colour blue.
You have not understand what I'm arguing then, at all. My moral understanding makes direct reference to the common ground in all human self-interest.
If you do not mind, will you please tell me what you understand the difference between "fact" and "belief" to be? Perhaps, I will agree, and we can move beyond this discussion of definitions.
A belief is an opinion, or conviction; it may or may not be supportable by facts.
So much for your objectivity then.Max S Cherry said:And since this is opinion versus opinion, substantiation is not applicable.
What reason is there for us to love and respect God? Especially if hypothetically he was to order murder and rape.I have already said that it is out of love and respect.
Your worldview encourages and validates delusion. Mine does not. I would check myself in for assessment, you would be out killing people.That you pretend to know what you would and would not do if you were delusional means either that you do not want to admit the truth or that you cannot see it.
You are being inconsistent. I said that the statement "Murder is wrong" is as it applies consistent, universal and as pertains to how you use the word objective entirely sufficient to be considered objective.You got it. I do not agree that an objective morality can exist without God.
This is exactly true with God. Because, as it happens you have people like me who do not consent to the self-declared imposed standards by God.Without God, each person is on equal footing, and each person must consent to the morality.
Neither is obeying God.The statement you made, murder is wrong, is an objective statement, but it is not an objective morality.
I believe you bought it up. But yes, I'd rather leave it.Then there is no need to address the subjective/objective topic any longer.
Not true. When you do say that God is the source of morality you are in fact saying the exact same thing when you say he's the source of power. I am letting you know how meaningless some words are to others when you use them.Another subjective/objective issue that is pointless to you.
Because those are the consequences from which people who are sane determine whether an action is right or wrong. When I said that consequences of actions towards others mean nothing to you exactly what did you imagine I was referring to?Why are we discussing humanity now? We were talking about morality, and I stated that the basis of my morality is God's will. Why the change?
Yes, I have principles. I always have. They are the reason I focus on how actions impact others. Point?And for all that, you cannot just admit that your actions have to be in line with your principle. My actions must be in line, and so must yours.
That is not what I am referring to. What I mean is that you don't care how your actions effect others. You do not care about the consequences towards your fellow humans. You only care if what happens aligns itself with what you think God wants.I am not detached from the action. There is no way I can be. It is the action that determines whether or not I am in line with God's will.
I actually welcome those statements. I then get the opportunity to point how meaningless they are coming from you.If you prefer to not encounter such statements from me, do not start the line of speaking. You mentioned it first and incorrectly, and I merely stated it correctly for you.
This is nothing more than "No u!". Explain how my assertion that God would be wrong if he endorsed murder or rape is pointless and how it is so on an equal level to you.And any word you use to describe how bad God is is equally pointless.
Oh don't play cute. You are the personification of the willing stooge. You are the Nazi collaborator. You are Vichy France. You are secret state informers. You are the recruited Stormtrooper. God as you represent him presents himself as the evil dictator.I often wonder the same thing. I am of the opinion that man's refusal to accept the existence of objective morals is the root cause.
You mean, according to you one absolute "right". That would be obedience to God. Don't pretend that your pseudo-morality actually has principles in plural other than obeying God.In the face of absolute rights and wrongs, I do not believe so many people would fall prey to evil men.
I don't. I want to know how you're distinguishing them.Perhaps you should first. You introduced ethics to the discussion.
???At any point, you are free to explain precisely how you could possibly be moral at the expense of your self-gain.
You love him why?I follow God because I love Him. Do I believe it is in my best interest to love Him? Yes.
No, you didn't make such a suggestion. I compared your claim to that of claims about atheists worshiping themselves or being hedonists.I made no such suggestion. I said that you tell yourself what to do. Do you deny that?
Yes, but it isn't exactly "obeying myself" or "following orders". There's a difference between blindly and without reason following the orders of a third party and acting in a specific way based on your understanding of reality.Does this not mean exactly what I said it means? Are you not telling yourself what to do?
Can you provide me someone who does in fact, want to be oppressed and have their human rights taken away? Even the most depraved of masochists want it on their own terms (read: consent).To claim to know what each and every person wants is more than I would dare do. If you feel up to it, do it. It is ridiculous, but it is your choice.
This depends on the person. I'm still waiting for an example of what you actually mean so I can respond.In all that, you never bothered to addressed the issue of your inability to know what a person consents to prior to taking action.
Yes, no-one's perfect and sometimes we misjudge others through ignorance and prejudice. Is this going anywhere or are you going to build some absurd point up about moral perfection?Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's good and fine that you stop once you know it is against their consent, but it does not change what you have already done. You acted immorally by your own moral standards.
You are making a category mistake.Please tell me the difference between a "belief" and a "fact."
Less us, and more you and every dictionary I have been able to reference.That is what I am asking you for as it seems to be an area of dispute for us.
Definitions to which you admit to "pulling out of thin air".I say that a belief is an opinion, a guess. I say that a fact is known, proven.
I consider facts to be a things that are indisputably the case. The Earth orbits the Sun. Humans share DNA with carrots.In your words, what is the difference?
So much for your objectivity then.
What reason is there for us to love and respect God? Especially if hypothetically he was to order murder and rape.
Your worldview encourages and validates delusion. Mine does not. I would check myself in for assessment, you would be out killing people.
You are being inconsistent. I said that the statement "Murder is wrong" is as it applies consistent, universal and as pertains to how you use the word objective entirely sufficient to be considered objective.
This is exactly true with God. Because, as it happens you have people like me who do not consent to the self-declared imposed standards by God.
Neither is obeying God.
I believe you bought it up. But yes, I'd rather leave it.
Not true. When you do say that God is the source of morality you are in fact saying the exact same thing when you say he's the source of power. I am letting you know how meaningless some words are to others when you use them.
Because those are the consequences from which people who are sane determine whether an action is right or wrong. When I said that consequences of actions towards others mean nothing to you exactly what did you imagine I was referring to?
Yes, I have principles. I always have. They are the reason I focus on how actions impact others. Point?
That is not what I am referring to. What I mean is that you don't care how your actions effect others. You do not care about the consequences towards your fellow humans. You only care if what happens aligns itself with what you think God wants.
I actually welcome those statements. I then get the opportunity to point how meaningless they are coming from you.
This is nothing more than "No u!". Explain how my assertion that God would be wrong if he endorsed murder or rape is pointless and how it is so on an equal level to you.
Oh don't play cute. You are the personification of the willing stooge. You are the Nazi collaborator. You are Vichy France. You are secret state informers. You are the recruited Stormtrooper. God as you represent him presents himself as the evil dictator.
You mean, according to you one absolute "right". That would be obedience to God. Don't pretend that your pseudo-morality actually has principles in plural other than obeying God.
I don't. I want to know how you're distinguishing them.
???
Is this a serious question?
Sacrificing career prospects because of a moral disagreement with the government. Becoming an overt human rights activist in a dictatorship. Merely sacrificing one's portion of food for another more helpless and ill person. Giving to charity. There are plenty of ways to be moral at the expense of your own interests.
That is in part, what morality is all about. The concept seems so foreign to you.
You love him why?
Yes, but it isn't exactly "obeying myself" or "following orders". There's a difference between blindly and without reason following the orders of a third party and acting in a specific way based on your understanding of reality.
Can you provide me someone who does in fact, want to be oppressed and have their human rights taken away? Even the most depraved of masochists want it on their own terms (read: consent).
This depends on the person. I'm still waiting for an example of what you actually mean so I can respond.
Yes, no-one's perfect and sometimes we misjudge others through ignorance and prejudice. Is this going anywhere or are you going to build some absurd point up about moral perfection
You are making a category mistake.
You can have your own beliefs, but not your own facts.
Less us, and more you and every dictionary I have been able to reference.
I consider facts to be a things that are indisputably the case.
A belief may be just an opinion, a guess.
But if a scientist says he believes that there is a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri with an orbital period of 3.2357 Earth days, plus or minus 0.0008 of a day, he is not basing it on a guess, he is using facts (astronomical observations).
What is this lack of "certainty" that you have referred to?
Yes.And a category mistake is? That beliefs and facts are different sorts of things and cannot be compared. Is that what you are saying?
Perhaps you could write your own dictionary that could be referenced when others are corresponding with you.I do not dispute this.
Park your dictionaries because they mean nothing to me. I know the definitions of words, and my vocabulary is not lacking. What I oppose is certain usages. If you are under the impression that an area of dispute can exist between one person, we have a new area of dispute, or perhaps this one is just yours. I am not sure how that works.
"Things that are indisputably the case" are still open to falsification. Things that are proven are not.Is it okay for me to say that "things that are indisputably the case" means that they are proven? If so, my definitions are holding. If it does not mean that they are proven, I am going to need you to tell me what "things that are indisputably the case" means.
You said "is", I said "may be".Again, you seem to concur with the definitions I supplied. I am not sure why you made all the fuss to begin with.
Because his belief - his interpretation of the facts - is open to falsification. A belief that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden is not.Why would the scientist say he believes the planet is there if it is based on facts? Why is it not a fact that the planet is there and behaving as he said it is behaving?
You said, "If you will stop suggesting that certainty has been achieved, I will stop suggesting that it has not."What is a lack certainty? I am not sure I know what you are asking.
"Things that are indisputably the case" are still open to falsification. Things that are proven are not.
You said "is", I said "may be".
Because his belief - his interpretation of the facts - is open to falsification.
A belief that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden is not.
You said, "If you will stop suggesting that certainty has been achieved, I will stop suggesting that it has not."
What is this lack of "certainty" that you are referring to?
Perhaps you could write your own dictionary that could be referenced when others are corresponding with you.
What if the fairies are invisible and only people with the proper faith can know of their existence.