A question for everyone

[Pommer]

And, as you say, people can develop their own morality and ethics, but these too can be correct or erroneous when compared correctly to the absolute standards of morality.

I hold the position that there are no “absolute standards of morality”.

 

[Bradskii]

... to the absolute standards of morality.

Do you know what all these are?

 

[GDL]

I hold the position that there are no “absolute standards of morality”.

Too bad you're not the only one.

 

[GDL]

Do you know what all these are?

Some of them, including the 2 main ones that summarize the rest. Haven't personally met or read anyone who knows them all. Still learning though.

 

[Astrid]

Too bad you're not the only one.

Not really. Its the absolutists who were behind such as the
inquisition.
"Absolute morality" is a nonsensical abstract concept
that forces warped and fanciful thinking on its adherents.

Say its " dont steal"
I talked with a christian.

After escalating questions about things like
" would you steal a ride on a bus, then pay back
Ten times over the next day"
To "steal medicine to save your mother"

I tried "steal a penny to save the entire world" and the
Christian i was questioning about absolute morality
got mad and would not answer.

Want to give it a try?

 

[GDL]

Not really. Its the absolutists who were behind such as the
inquisition.
"Absolute morality" is a nonsensical abstract concept
that forces warped and fanciful thinking on its adherents.

Say its " dont steal"
I talked with a christian.

After escalating questions about things like
" would you steal a ride on a bus, then pay back
Ten times over the next day"
To "steal medicine to save your mother"

I tried "steal a penny to save the entire world" and the
Christian i was questioning about absolute morality
got mad and would not answer.

Want to give it a try?

No thanks. I don't live under the illusion that I've got all the answers to details on the subject. But, re: the OP, I don't view true morality as being based in human existence nor as made by individuals or groups and their experience.

Tying this to the inquisition and how people have used, and misused standards has been dealt with already and is not a real argument. It's a tired one and in your words, "nonsensical." What people can do with absolutes is a problem, but such does not change the absolute. In the same light, what people can do with their self-made versions of morality is also a problem. Your other line of thinking is a better discussion.

I'm aware of how escalating questions can reveal lack of reasoning abilities and, or lack of practiced reasoning or understanding. One of the questions I normally end up asking in almost any deeper than surface discussion is: What does that mean? Frequently we can't even explain words we use that we take for granted we understand. More often than not we are essentially speaking different languages because we define words differently and then we pretend or mistake that we understand one another. Most of us are just not that skilled in thinking.

Since you've brought up "Christian," there's a writing in the Text where some so-called legal (standards) experts were questioning Christ to trap Him in a way similar to what you're talking about. In their view He was doing something they viewed as being illegal. He in turn did the escalating questions routine and took them on a 3-level journey back through Law that showed their lack of understanding, and that the ultimate intent of the Law was to benefit people while at the same time not going against God. There's ultimately a balance there that only He understood and lived. IOW there's a structure to Law and standards that you're chasing in your escalating questions. Good for you! Thinking on different levels is not the normal practice of the masses - within and outside of Christianity.

As I said, I'm still studying and will be until I can no longer, so you may well trap me and I wouldn't be surprised. But wherever you might reach my lack of ability would not prove you've obtained the absolute and still would not undue the absolute, that in my experience nobody is fully geared up about. If someone was, I'd be sitting at their feet asking questions - some of them being: What if...?

There's one answer to all of our issues and it's not everybody making up their own morality or pretending they've got all the answers and forcing their errors on others. Your harshly stated opinion about absolute morality is an example of advanced erroneous thinking in my view, and I fully comprehend that we disagree.

 

[Astrid]

No thanks. I don't live under the illusion that I've got all the answers to details on the subject. But, re: the OP, I don't view true morality as being based in human existence nor as made by individuals or groups and their experience.

Tying this to the inquisition and how people have used, and misused standards has been dealt with already and is not a real argument. It's a tired one and in your words, "nonsensical." What people can do with absolutes is a problem, but such does not change the absolute. In the same light, what people can do with their self-made versions of morality is also a problem. Your other line of thinking is a better discussion.

I'm aware of how escalating questions can reveal lack of reasoning abilities and, or lack of practiced reasoning or understanding. One of the questions I normally end up asking in almost any deeper than surface discussion is: What does that mean? Frequently we can't even explain words we use that we take for granted we understand. More often than not we are essentially speaking different languages because we define words differently and then we pretend or mistake that we understand one another. Most of us are just not that skilled in thinking.

Since you've brought up "Christian," there's a writing in the Text where some so-called legal (standards) experts were questioning Christ to trap Him in a way similar to what you're talking about. In their view He was doing something they viewed as being illegal. He in turn did the escalating questions routine and took them on a 3-level journey back through Law that showed their lack of understanding, and that the ultimate intent of the Law was to benefit people while at the same time not going against God. There's ultimately a balance there that only He understood and lived. IOW there's a structure to Law and standards that you're chasing in your escalating questions. Good for you! Thinking on different levels is not the normal practice of the masses - within and outside of Christianity.

As I said, I'm still studying and will be until I can no longer, so you may well trap me and I wouldn't be surprised. But wherever you might reach my lack of ability would not prove you've obtained the absolute and still would not undue the absolute, that in my experience nobody is fully geared up about. If someone was, I'd be sitting at their feet asking questions - some of them being: What if...?

There's one answer to all of our issues and it's not everybody making up their own morality or pretending they've got all the answers and forcing their errors on others. Your harshly stated opinion about absolute morality is an example of advanced erroneous thinking in my view, and I fully comprehend that we disagree.

Disregarding your divers errors, and getting
to the meat here:
If you say there. (absolutely) is "absolute
morality", you are stating opinion as fact,
with no way to demonstrate anything about
said absolute.

 

[GDL]

Disregarding your divers errors, and getting
to the meat here:
If you say there. (absolutely) is "absolute
morality", you are stating opinion as fact,
with no way to demonstrate anything about
said absolute.

My [per your opinion] unspecified diverse errors I'm certain you think you can prove erroneous but cannot.

Yes, I believe there are absolutes, and you believe there are none. I've alluded that I don't think I can change your mind, and I know you cannot change mine. So, neither of us can prove to one another what we believe, which seems to be the more typical ending of such philosophical discussions. I simply have come to believe more and more over several decades of very focused studies what certain writings say and do trust them even increasingly, which in turn causes me to see more and more how absurd opposing views are. I also lived in line with those opposing views for a few decades, which was the beginning of my awareness of their absurdity.

How's Hong Kong?

 

[Astrid]

My [per your opinion] unspecified diverse errors I'm certain you think you can prove erroneous but cannot.

Yes, I believe there are absolutes, and you believe there are none. I've alluded that I don't think I can change your mind, and I know you cannot change mine. So, neither of us can prove to one another what we believe, which seems to be the more typical ending of such philosophical discussions. I simply have come to believe more and more over several decades of very focused studies what certain writings say and do trust them even increasingly, which in turn causes me to see more and more how absurd opposing views are. I also lived in line with those opposing views for a few decades, which was the beginning of my awareness of their absurdity.

How's Hong Kong?

Id change my mind if i were shown something
other than faith. Another of your many errors.
But good to learn you would refuse to change no
matter what- the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

" Philosophy" is invoked at the entrance to
the rabbit hole.

Easier n more forthright to just admit the existence of
" absolute morality" is an baseless opinion.

 

[Bradskii]

Some of them, including the 2 main ones that summarize the rest. Haven't personally met or read anyone who knows them all. Still learning though.

So you're saying that we have moral rules that we should obey in various situations. But nobody knows what they are.

Until we find out, what do you think we should do?

 

[GDL]

Id change my mind if i were shown something
other than faith. Another of your many errors.
But good to learn you would refuse to change no
matter what- the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

" Philosophy" is invoked at the entrance to
the rabbit hole.

Easier n more forthright to just admit the existence of
" absolute morality" is an baseless opinion.

But isn't it Faith vs. human viewpoint reasoning that's at issue between us? You mean if I could offer you something within the non-faith realm, then you'd change your view within that same realm? Maybe you're not as open as you attempt to represent, and "Skeptic" is underestimating yourself.

Yours is a normal response from someone who doesn't understand what Biblical Faith is and from a self-assertion of one's self-perceived intellectual capacities. It's very easy to send your "baseless opinion" comment back to you.

There's a section of Scripture in the New Covenant Writings that I understand through some research in the Greek manuscripts based in the times they were written as explaining Faith being compared to the Socratic method of reasoning and testing of ideas. I can tell you that my own Faith is based upon a lot of inquiry, a lot of studies, and a lot of back & forth with the Text apart from translations after having been trained in the original languages, mainly Greek.

Any concept you may have of "blind faith" is misguided. Any materialistic view you have that does not recognize immaterial things as being a part of us and used by us are also misguided. In addition, some of what we're instructed by authors brighter & wiser than you & me regarding the self-professed "unbeliever" speaks of the unbeliever's intellectual and practical dishonesty in rejecting knowledge that has been made clear to them via their sense perception. Again, I certainly don't expect you to accept such practical knowledge, based upon your responses.

You call yourself a skeptic, but you speak like a very antagonistic opponent to Faith and your efforts to shift intellectual dishonesty to me are pointless but are likely just feeding your self-assessed intellectual superiority.

You're correct that you will not sway me. I've been in my own version of where you are. I may have spent more time there than you have to date. There's no comparison between the 2 choices and I've no desire to go backwards. I do however constantly ask questions of the documents and thinking I study and have had my thinking on some issues changed drastically over the years in the Faith as I learn more and know more to ask.

So, now that we've addressed a bunch of the meaningless personal stuff and suffered one-another's unimportant comments, and in line with the OP, where do you think moral principles come from & is there anything we should consider that predates our physical existence / identity?

 

[Astrid]

But isn't it Faith vs. human viewpoint reasoning that's at issue between us? You mean if I could offer you something within the non-faith realm, then you'd change your view within that same realm? Maybe you're not as open as you attempt to represent, and "Skeptic" is underestimating yourself.

Yours is a normal response from someone who doesn't understand what Biblical Faith is and from a self-assertion of one's self-perceived intellectual capacities. It's very easy to send your "baseless opinion" comment back to you.

There's a section of Scripture in the New Covenant Writings that I understand through some research in the Greek manuscripts based in the times they were written as explaining Faith being compared to the Socratic method of reasoning and testing of ideas. I can tell you that my own Faith is based upon a lot of inquiry, a lot of studies, and a lot of back & forth with the Text apart from translations after having been trained in the original languages, mainly Greek.

Any concept you may have of "blind faith" is misguided. Any materialistic view you have that does not recognize immaterial things as being a part of us and used by us are also misguided. In addition, some of what we're instructed by authors brighter & wiser than you & me regarding the self-professed "unbeliever" speaks of the unbeliever's intellectual and practical dishonesty in rejecting knowledge that has been made clear to them via their sense perception. Again, I certainly don't expect you to accept such practical knowledge, based upon your responses.

You call yourself a skeptic, but you speak like a very antagonistic opponent to Faith and your efforts to shift intellectual dishonesty to me are pointless but are likely just feeding your self-assessed intellectual superiority.

You're correct that you will not sway me. I've been in my own version of where you are. I may have spent more time there than you have to date. There's no comparison between the 2 choices and I've no desire to go backwards. I do however constantly ask questions of the documents and thinking I study and have had my thinking on some issues changed drastically over the years in the Faith as I learn more and know more to ask.

So, now that we've addressed a bunch of the meaningless personal stuff and suffered one-another's unimportant comments, and in line with the OP, where do you think moral principles come from & is there anything we should consider that predates our physical existence / identity?

" ive been where you are but now I know better" is such a moldy oldie.
So are claims to arcane knowledge. Speaking of assumed superiority!

"Nothing can change my mind" is the,refined essence of
intellectual dishonesty.

Making up things about how I think is not for behind.

Morality is seen in many or most of its basic elements
among many animals.
Its about survival.
People refined it.

 

[GDL]

So you're saying that we have moral rules that we should obey in various situations. But nobody knows what they are.

Until we find out, what do you think we should do?

No, you're saying that. I said I don't know all of them, which was what you originally asked, was it not?

Do what we currently best know is in line with absolute morality and keep seeking more understanding, and growth, and be open to any change that conforms us to the absolute. But this is firstly within the Faith realm although the same principle works to some degree for a life apart from it.

 

[Astrid]

No, you're saying that. I said I don't know all of them, which was what you originally asked, was it not?

Do what we currently best know is in line with absolute morality and keep seeking more understanding, and growth, and be open to any change that conforms us to the absolute. But this is firstly within the Faith realm although the same principle works to some degree for a life apart from it.

" What we know"?

 

[GDL]

" ive been where you are but now I know better" is such a moldy oldie.
So are claims to arcane knowledge. Speaking of assumed superiority!

"Nothing can change my mind" is the,refined essence of
intellectual dishonesty.

Making up things about how I think is not for behind.

Morality is seen in many or most of its basic elements
among many animals.
Its about survival.
People refined it.

Good enough. Basic materialism. Yes, it's basic to the Faith that knowledge infinitely superior to ours exists and preexisted us. Good catch. People refined the animals' basic morality - good one, but still doesn't explain where it came from, or how and why such immaterial things exist.

 

[Bradskii]

No, you're saying that. I said I don't know all of them, which was what you originally asked, was it not?

Do what we currently best know is in line with absolute morality and keep seeking more understanding, and growth, and be open to any change that conforms us to the absolute. But this is firstly within the Faith realm although the same principle works to some degree for a life apart from it.

You were saying that nobody knows what they all are. And as we have an infinite number of scenarios that would require a moral determination, that's a lot of unknowns.

But let's go with the ones for which people say that have an answer. I see two problems that prompt two questions:

The first is: wherever you get your moral rule from, do you accept it without further thought or do you examine it and decide that it's correct?

And the second: If two Christians give me conflicting advice on a moral problem, how do I determine who is correct?

 

[GDL]

" What we know"?

Know not to murder someone? Most of us thankfully have some inherent knowledge in a conscience we'll listen to. Don't you?

 

[Astrid]

Good enough. Basic materialism. Yes, it's basic to the Faith that knowledge infinitely superior to ours exists and preexisted us. Good catch. People refined the animals' basic morality - good one, but still doesn't explain where it came from, or how and why such immaterial things exist.

Try responding to what is said.

 

[Astrid]

Know not to murder someone? Most of us thankfully have some inherent knowledge in a conscience we'll listen to. Don't you?

Never mind.

 

[GDL]

You were saying that nobody knows what they all are. And as we have an infinite number of scenarios that would require a moral determination, that's a lot of unknowns.

But let's go with the ones for which people say that have an answer. I see two problems that prompt two questions:

The first is: wherever you get your moral rule from, do you accept it without further thought or do you examine it and decide that it's correct?

And the second: If two Christians give me conflicting advice on a moral problem, how do I determine who is correct?

The key word, being "all."

Infinite scenarios may be a bit of hyperbole, but "a lot" seems workable. I think if we can see things from a high enough altitude, this is just a big sandbox with boundaries to prevent all the scenarios in the infinite scheme of things. There are certainly a lot of combinations of scenarios, though.

I doubt it's a surprise that I get moral rule from the Christian Bible, which includes the Hebrew Scriptures. I do a lot of study to properly understand it in context, both written and historical. I don't normally accept anything without thought and do not normally trust other's viewpoints and interpretations, especially as time advances. I think we're responsible for the decisions we make, so I take things from this base point.

If, or "when" 2 or more Christians give you conflicting advice!? For a Christian, when such conflicting advice was received from Christians, my course has been to get educated to do my own work in the Text, find others who have done more work than me and within the original languages vs. translations, draw on the power of prayer, reflection, and more counsel as may be necessary, and as much as possible not be forced into decisions I'm not ready to make. Also, for some issues of life I do not limit myself to input from Christians, but I always seek to take the advice back to the Text.

It's best for a new Christian and even others to understand as early as possible that this is a time in history where there is a lot of immaturity in understanding in the "churches" and in my view, a lot of pseudo-Christianity.