The Logical Premise?

[Obliquinaut]

A lot of those people are called wolves in sheeps' clothing; and all of them are called "goats."

I've seen that a lot.

I used to play Euchre with a couple of people who would give you the shirt off their backs.

I was convinced they would throw themselves in front of a train if it would save your life.

But both of them were practicing Satanists.

Satanism never made any sense to me. If one believes in gods and devils why on earth would anyone worship the devils? It makes zero sense.

Usually I see satanists seem to simply arbitrarily define Satan according to some silly concept, certainly not the one that is portrayed in the Bible.

Makes zero sense to me.

But again, people are people and most people will endeavor to do the "right" thing (ie care for others, not murder anyone, minimize lies etc.)

 

[Obliquinaut]

This doesn't explain why one person murdered and another didn't.

MOST people don't murder. Sins are not apportioned by faith. I am not convinced it has anything to do with one's faith whether one does something bad to another person. That was my original point.

People in the Middle Ages were willing to do some truly appalling things to each other and in many cases they justified it through their faith. (Some will say it was in spite of the faith, but it was still undertaken with the imprimatur of faith).

MOST people are fundamentally good. Sure we are all prone to violations and sins. None of us are perfect. Every single one of us will hurt someone at some time in some way. Sometimes we even do it knowing full well we are doing it. We are human. We are animals with passions and lusts and anger and love.

Pursuing what God wants is a useful rubric for some people, for others we pursue the same ends only without the need of that framework.

 

[Resha Caner]

I am not convinced it has anything to do with one's faith ...

Faith has no impact on a person's actions? Hmm.

MOST people are fundamentally good.

Given the qualifiers in that statement, I'm not sure it means much. Are you willing to state it more precisely?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Faith has no impact on a person's actions? Hmm.

No, but faith is not required to explain any particular behavior.

Given the qualifiers in that statement, I'm not sure it means much. Are you willing to state it more precisely?

It means enough. It means exactly what it says. It is pretty simple.

 

[Kylie]

I did say that. I just think the situation would be the same even in a relativist moral system.

How can we understand something that is not objectively true? At best, we can have an opinion, but it can never be fact.

You wouldn't.

Then why do you propose that as the way to find out what is good and evil?

 

[Resha Caner]

How can we understand something that is not objectively true? At best, we can have an opinion, but it can never be fact.

My answer would be that we can't - at least not in the sense that you probably mean it. However, we probably need a few definitions before we can really dig into this. I'll say a few things about the underlined words, but since it's your statement, I'll let you offer whatever definitions best convey your intended meaning.
* Objective: IMO that's just a secular euphemism for "absolute". So, to my ears the statement sounds like you're making an appeal to absolute truth - something I expect you would say you don't believe. So, as we begin to wrangle some definition of "objective", I expect it to become a search for agreement on some foundational axiom.
* Truth: What started this whole thing off was my statement that truth can only be revealed. I'm not sure what we can accomplish by circling back to this.
* Fact: IMO a fact is agreement within a group that a particular statement about data will be accepted within that group. There is no claim of "truth" WRT facts, but only agreements of acceptance.

Then why do you propose that as the way to find out what is good and evil?

I'm not. That is the confusion here. Look at typical phrasings from the Bible. For example:
* He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord ... (1 Kings 22:52)
* And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord ... (Deut 6:18)

I don't care whether you call that absolute or relative morality. IMO it is what it is. If God says it, then that is the absolute and final word on the matter (though don't take that to mean I don't struggle with it or that I always comply perfectly). What that boils down to is that there is no such thing as good and evil (in an absolute sense). There is only God's will and whether I comply.

Good and evil, then, are only terms for a discussion between you and me. It's similar to facts. If we can agree something is beneficial, then that's good. If we can agree something is not beneficial, then that's evil. Those agreements, however, will be tough to come by when my touchstone is the Bible and yours is not.

 

[mnorian]

Mod hat on

Thread permanently closed
for
over-the-top; egregious, uncalled-for
FLAMING!
By consensus of the Staff.
Carry on.
​