Formal Debate Peanut Gallery- There ARE absolute moral laws prescribed by our Creator

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Formal Debate can be found here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7825098/#post65712801

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

First Post is up.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Second post is up: #4

 

[Ana the Ist]

I, for one, think Ana's doing a fantastic job.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Another post is up beginning here: #6

 

[Strathos]

I, for one, think Ana's doing a fantastic job.

I think you made a mistake.

You, dear reader, probably think the slaughter of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis was a "wrong" thing. I think it was a wrong thing. Does everyone? Obviously not. If such a statement were posted on a neo-nazi forum...I imagine many would think it a "good" thing. As shocking as it may seem...a great many people in our world think it a "good" thing.

Most Neo-Nazis are Holocaust deniers, if you posted this to them they would say the Holocaust was a fabrication to make the Nazis look bad and gain sympathy for the Jews. So, by holding that position, even they recognize that it wouldn't be a good thing.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Another post is up: #8

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think you made a mistake.



Most Neo-Nazis are Holocaust deniers, if you posted this to them they would say the Holocaust was a fabrication to make the Nazis look bad and gain sympathy for the Jews. So, by holding that position, even they recognize that it wouldn't be a good thing.

Some are deniers sure. Some believe the holocaust didn't go far enough. Here's a nice resource where you can read about people who want to kill Jews. Enjoy.

Neo-Nazism | Jewish Virtual Library

 

[Freodin]

I think you made a mistake.



Most Neo-Nazis are Holocaust deniers, if you posted this to them they would say the Holocaust was a fabrication to make the Nazis look bad and gain sympathy for the Jews. So, by holding that position, even they recognize that it wouldn't be a good thing.

I think you made a similar mistake here... you already said "Most Neo-Nazis". Which just supports the idea that not all people - not even all Neo-Nazis - agree on morality.

And even if all Neo-Nazis agreed... a supporter of the idea of moral relativism could just adapt David's approach and claim that, while they all agree outwardly, they feel differently "in their heart" (or what Neo-Nazis have instead).


That, in my view, is the main flaw in David's argumentation: he claims that everyone feels the same, and when confronted with opposing evidence, he simply keeps on claiming that he is right.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

.......................


That, in my view, is the main flaw in David's argumentation: he claims that everyone feels the same, and when confronted with opposing evidence, he simply keeps on claiming that he is right.

Im only right because the Moral Law (Moral Conscience/Moral Duty/Moral Oughtness, etc...) is such that it IS the standard for what is objectively right from wrong ; and the simple test to absolutely determine that if One isn't sure ,is to ask himself this question : 'If the same treatment/ideal/belief that I am embracing were visited on myself by Others....would I be indifferent to it or would I vehemently object to it ?'

This was Jesus' teaching to ' treat others the same way that you desire to be treated' . Active Moral Relativism completely nullifies this highest standard of ethics and is the worst possible ideal for the harmony of humanity --- its only those who want to partake in low-life / amoral living that think its so wonderful a concept. Conversely, there is great freedom / fulfillment / and joy from knowing youre living a righteous, noble, life that comes from wanting to live in step with the Moral Law which comes from our Creator ............ even if cant be kept to the letter ; just the sincere desire to live for God and not wanting to suppress our Moral Conscience makes us feel good about ourselves and our life lived because its one of the things that naturally outflows from being in step with our Creator. Its most likely difficult for someone to understand this who wants to be his own authority in the name of Narcissism .

 

[Ana the Ist]

Im only right because the Moral Law (Moral Conscience/Moral Duty/Moral Oughtness, etc...) is such that it IS the standard for what is objectively right from wrong ; and the simple test to absolutely determine that if One isn't sure ,is to ask himself this question : 'If the same treatment/ideal/belief that I am embracing were visited on myself by Others....would I be indifferent to it or would I vehemently object to it ?'

This was Jesus' teaching to ' treat others the same way that you desire to be treated' . Active Moral Relativism completely nullifies this highest standard of ethics and is the worst possible ideal for the harmony of humanity --- its only those who want to partake in low-life / amoral living that think its so wonderful a concept. Conversely, there is great freedom / fulfillment / and joy from knowing youre living a righteous, noble, life that comes from wanting to live in step with the Moral Law which comes from our Creator ............ even if cant be kept to the letter ; just the sincere desire to live for God and not wanting to suppress our Moral Conscience makes us feel good about ourselves and our life lived because its one of the things that naturally outflows from being in step with our Creator. Its most likely difficult for someone to understand this who wants to be his own authority in the name of Narcissism .

You should've included this point in your last post Dave. It would've at least given me something else to refute.

I can easily think of several things I would do that I consider morally "good" that I would not want done to myself. I'm sure just about anyone can.

 

[Freodin]

Im only right because the Moral Law (Moral Conscience/Moral Duty/Moral Oughtness, etc...) is such that it IS the standard for what is objectively right from wrong ; and the simple test to absolutely determine that if One isn't sure ,is to ask himself this question : 'If the same treatment/ideal/belief that I am embracing were visited on myself by Others....would I be indifferent to it or would I vehemently object to it ?'

This was Jesus' teaching to ' treat others the same way that you desire to be treated' . Active Moral Relativism completely nullifies this highest standard of ethics and is the worst possible ideal for the harmony of humanity --- its only those who want to partake in low-life / amoral living that think its so wonderful a concept. Conversely, there is great freedom / fulfillment / and joy from knowing youre living a righteous, noble, life that comes from wanting to live in step with the Moral Law which comes from our Creator ............ even if cant be kept to the letter ; just the sincere desire to live for God and not wanting to suppress our Moral Conscience makes us feel good about ourselves and our life lived because its one of the things that naturally outflows from being in step with our Creator. Its most likely difficult for someone to understand this who wants to be his own authority in the name of Narcissism .

I know that you cannot see it, even if you clearly spelled it out here: you are making a prime case for moral relativism.

So the "highest standard of ethics" is "treat others the same way that you desire to be treated"? Well, on a very basic level, I agree with that.

But take a closer look at what this is saying, what it is saying in precise terms: "...that you desire to be treated..."

It sets as the hightest standard of ethics "your desire".

In fact, it is the exact opposite of an absolute moral system, which would have as the prime maxime: "do as you are told, whether you agree or not".

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The final post is up!

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

I know that you cannot see it, even if you clearly spelled it out here: you are making a prime case for moral relativism.

So the "highest standard of ethics" is "treat others the same way that you desire to be treated"? Well, on a very basic level, I agree with that.

But take a closer look at what this is saying, what it is saying in precise terms: "...that you desire to be treated..."

It sets as the hightest standard of ethics "your desire".

........

And isn't YOUR DESIRE to be treated with the utmost of fairness/honesty/and integrity from Others and not to be lied to /cheated/used/ etc....? Of course it is. Do you ever accept its alright to be cheated just a little , lied to just a little , and take advantage of just a little ?

You like the rest of humankind, know how you want to be treated by Others...but to act ACCORDING TO Moral Relativism offers the deceptive superficial feeling that youre experiencing maximum freedom ,liberty, and fun from calling your own (amoral) shots in life . God is offering all of us a far better way than narcissism and hedonism for this life...but it starts with you allowing God to come into your life and giving him the due honor, respect, and authority over you -- whether a person likes it or not, they are already OWNED by God . Up until the moment you physically die to this life, you still have a chance to get it right finally ; but you will give an account for your life lived and what you did with Jesus. At that time, it wont matter about all the gusto , immoral and otherwise, that you racked up for maximized fun. That will no longer be the focus --- moving into eternity will however.

end.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I know that you cannot see it, even if you clearly spelled it out here: you are making a prime case for moral relativism.

So the "highest standard of ethics" is "treat others the same way that you desire to be treated"? Well, on a very basic level, I agree with that.

But take a closer look at what this is saying, what it is saying in precise terms: "...that you desire to be treated..."

It sets as the hightest standard of ethics "your desire".

In fact, it is the exact opposite of an absolute moral system, which would have as the prime maxime: "do as you are told, whether you agree or not".

Excellent point. By that logic, if you "desire" to be treated poorly, you're morally justified in treating others poorly. I've found the "golden rule" to be one of those sayings that sounds good initially, but upon any serious examination it falls apart pretty quickly. The reason it's popular is it's fairly simple and most people aren't going to think very hard about it in the first place.

IMO David's position was doomed from the start. When all of your supporting arguments are contrary to the personal experience of most people...well, it's not very difficult to demolish those arguments. All I really had to do was make sure the debate stayed on track and didn't wander off into irrelevant topics.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Ana, Thanks again for being my Debate Partner. Ill make this my final post :

1. Trying to appeal to genuine Christians to adopt Moral Relativism is asking true Christians to go back to living in the world and doing whatever feels good ; real Christians were taken out of Moral Relativism and set above that way of loose living , so, your appeal cant be taken seriously . Christ offers a far better way of doing life than living for Self .

2. All I did regarding male homosexuality is simply describe the consequences of the anus valve becoming destroyed thru the act associated with this wrongful lifestyle. Gay Bowel Syndrome is a medical term and diagnosis as are the other 8 infections to do with Male Homosexuality. You can call the facts presented as 'ugly' , but really they are simply the consequential truth .

3. Finally, your appeal to demonstrate tolerance to immoral lifestyles which is closely tied to the Moral Relativism ideal, is really another tacit admission that the Moral Law ive been speaking of, exists . Tolerance itself is a moral principle ; if there is no Moral Law then why should anyone be tolerant ? The plea to be tolerant is an admission that the behavior in question is wrong., because you don't need to plea for people to be tolerant to good behavior...only bad behavior . No one needs to be talked into tolerating the behavior of Mother Theresa ... only the behavior of most Relativists. We only make excuses for acting against the Moral Law and we wouldn't do so if it didn't exist.

4. Remember : When your friend finally gets around to stealing half of your $12 Steakburger sandwich and you feel slighted....just tell yourself your Friend was practicing Moral Relativism and what he did really wasn't wrong at all.

Here the whole point : Because all of us have violated Gods absolute Moral Law , we are all guilty of doing so. In his love for us, he sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to pay that penalty of our sins ; God loved us so much that he didn't want us to suffer the consequences of our bad moral choices in this life or for eternity, so, he stepped in to do something about it. Jesus became our sacrifice for wanting to violate Gods absolute Moral Law. If we accept Christs sacrifice on the cross, then it is sufficient to erase sins. He then gives us the desire to WANT TO live in step with the Moral Law which is the best for us in any case. God has a good plan for all of us and it doesn't include being our own authority ... the life he has for us all is to hand over authority to him and to live rightly which is not only correct and beneficial, but it also makes us feel good about ourselves. Practicing moral relativism wont give the joy , fulfillment, and ultimate purpose to being here because it is superficial , is bankrupt , and highly deceptive . It carries the fake promise that we will get more fun, pleasure, and meaning from life...but it is all deceptive and false. You can realize this as I did and as many others have, but it will require a surrender to wanting to make Self first above all else. Thank you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ana, Thanks again for being my Debate Partner. Ill make this my final post :

1. Trying to appeal to genuine Christians to adopt Moral Relativism is asking true Christians to go back to living in the world and doing whatever feels good ; real Christians were taken out of Moral Relativism and set above that way of loose living , so, your appeal cant be taken seriously . Christ offers a far better way of doing life than living for Self .

2. All I did regarding male homosexuality is simply describe the consequences of the anus valve becoming destroyed thru the act associated with this wrongful lifestyle. Gay Bowel Syndrome is a medical term and diagnosis as are the other 8 infections to do with Male Homosexuality. You can call the facts presented as 'ugly' , but really they are simply the consequential truth .

3. Finally, your appeal to demonstrate tolerance to immoral lifestyles which is closely tied to the Moral Relativism ideal, is really another tacit admission that the Moral Law ive been speaking of, exists . Tolerance itself is a moral principle ; if there is no Moral Law then why should anyone be tolerant ? The plea to be tolerant is an admission that the behavior in question is wrong., because you don't need to plea for people to be tolerant to good behavior...only bad behavior . No one needs to be talked into tolerating the behavior of Mother Theresa ... only the behavior of most Relativists. We only make excuses for acting against the Moral Law and we wouldn't do so if it didn't exist.

4. Remember : When your friend finally gets around to stealing half of your $12 Steakburger sandwich and you feel slighted....just tell yourself your Friend was practicing Moral Relativism and what he did really wasn't wrong at all. Cya . End.

Hey, no problem Dave...I really enjoyed the debate and I'm certainly looking forward to my next one. They're fun! In regards to your points...

1. I tried to appeal to Christians because you kept insisting that moral relativism has something to do with "materialism". Also, since the majority of the audience is christian, I figured I'd appeal to them. Moral relativism is true because it's the only model of morality that consistently explains everyone's morals all the time. It's the only model that works in reality. Any other model is going to have multiple examples in real life that make no sense whatsoever...like your model of absolute morals. It wasn't really difficult at all to come up with examples that contradict your "proof."

2. I've never heard of "Gay Bowel Syndrome"...I've certainly never heard of anyone in the medical community speak about it. I'm not saying it isn't true, it's just kinda gross that's the example you want to use. While your concern over the health of the sphincters of gay men everywhere is...touching...I don't see why you decided to go with homosexuality as an issue. There are so many "sins" you believe are going on in the world, why do you seem most interested in man-on-man love?

3. I don't remember calling for "tolerance" in my posts anywhere. If I did, give me the context, and I'll gladly address it and explain what I meant.

4. I never addressed your "steakburger" example because I didn't need to...I saw that you didn't quite understand that or else you wouldn't have kept repeating it. It's really simple...you claimed that when someone breaks the "moral law" against us (your example was stealing) we always feel bad about it...that's how we know it's a moral law. I gave an example that showed we don't always feel bad about it. At that point, your claim is wrong. Going back and trying to give another example about when we do feel bad about it won't help. My example still stands....and if your claim is shown to be false even just part of the time, then it's false.

 

[Strathos]

I've heard of it, mainly on Conservapedia. Not a very reliable source.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've heard of it, mainly on Conservapedia. Not a very reliable source.

Lol it just sounds like a very amusing name for a condition. There's several medical conditions with amusing names, but Gay Bowel Syndrome doesn't even remotely sound scientific. The name of it seems to suggest that it occurs when one's bowels come out of the closet and declare to the large intestine that they're gay. It's as if the whole thing could be some late-night adult cartoon on HBO.

 

[now faith]

Lol it just sounds like a very amusing name for a condition. There's several medical conditions with amusing names, but Gay Bowel Syndrome doesn't even remotely sound scientific. The name of it seems to suggest that it occurs when one's bowels come out of the closet and declare to the large intestine that they're gay. It's as if the whole thing could be some late-night adult cartoon on HBO.

You have overlooked the obvious,it would be a condition as a result of a life style.

Such as coal miner lung.

It is not a idiom in medical terms no more than dumb ass is a hard of hearing donkey.