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, I understood that - but I was making the point that your reference to absolute morality wasn't a baseless remark since it had a foundation in a more generally accepted philosophical sense...
Yes, it has.
Post #9 is arguing that morality can only be understood in an ultimate objective or absolute sense.
Is it any different from or more substantial than, say, the "argument": "Humans have legs, therefore God"?This is the basic 'jist' of the moral argument for the existence of god...
No, the post doesn´t present any argument. It just presents an empty assertion.
So what?Now, it may be that the poster, you or Lewis have something in store to support it - but it hasn´t been done here.
And for the argument that Post #9 countered--that one's political policies determine what's morally good or bad.Same goes for the "You are wrong" that has been given in return.
I believe good people will do good, and bad people will do bad inspite of religion. The difference is the religious person will use his religion to justify his behavior weather it be good or bad, the non religious person will take responsibility for his own actions.
Ken
That's not necessarily the only question. It is actually the case that 'good' people will--or can-- do 'good' if there is no standard of goodness beyond themselves?
All the doubters, skeptics, agnostics, atheists, etc. that I know have ditched God but somehow measure goodness by how well people around then adhere to...ready for it?...the Judeo-Christian value system that has permeated our society, like it or not.
I don´t aim for perfection (and looking at "things" I really don´t know how to arrive at the conclusion that they do). To me, perfection is an entirely abstract concept (pretending the possibility of a static, contextless reality) that takes the life out of life. Plus, it´s boring.
It´s basically the state prior to creation: A perfect entity sitting there in the middle of nothing - with nothing to interact with, with nothing to do except for enjoying his own perfection (btw. every entity in that situation would have to be called "perfect"). Even God got bored of that. So he created drama.
In that case, I should say "Hello, and "How are you doin'?" The rarity of such an event certainly calls for a special response.You've just met one who doesn't.
While I doubt that I am completely uninfluenced by the Judeo-Christian value system as it exists in modern culture, my personal ethics isn't merely a cut-and-paste of that ethical system. There are significant differences.
In any case, doing good does not require having a standard of goodness "beyond oneself".
I can understand that opinion coming from a person with....ready for it?....Judeo-Christian values; but comming from a doubter, skeptic, agnostic, atheist, etc. who believes there is no standard of goodness beyond ourselves, I see the Judeo-Christian value system constantly changing as society changes.That's not necessarily the only question. It is actually the case that 'good' people will--or can-- do 'good' if there is no standard of goodness beyond themselves?
All the doubters, skeptics, agnostics, atheists, etc. that I know have ditched God but somehow measure goodness by how well people around then adhere to...ready for it?...the Judeo-Christian value system that has permeated our society, like it or not.
Well, you're wrong. It's coming from a person with substantial knowledge of the history of Western culture. If you are well-educated in Western history yourself, you can hardly avoid knowing that the ideas we today suppose to be non-religious or secular, or merely humane, or even "obvious" are quite unlike the values that people in other cultures assume are "normal" and right...and that they derive, to a considerable extent, from Jewish and Christian thinking about proper or fair behavior.I can understand that opinion coming from a person with....ready for it?....Judeo-Christian values
Since you are "well educated" in Western culture, would you agree that the Judeo-Christian values of today are different than the Judeo-Christian values of yesteryear? That as society's values changed (slavery, racism, etc.) Judeo-Christian values changed as well?Well, you're wrong. It's coming from a person with substantial knowledge of the history of Western culture. If you are well-educated in Western history yourself, you can hardly avoid knowing that the ideas we today suppose to be non-religious or secular, or merely humane, or even "obvious" are quite unlike the values that people in other cultures assume are "normal" and right...and that they derive, to a considerable extent, from Jewish and Christian thinking about proper or fair behavior.
To some degree, sure. That doesn't change the basics of what we were discussing, however.Since you are "well educated" in Western culture, would you agree that the Judeo-Christian values of today are different than the Judeo-Christian values of yesteryear?
That as society's values changed (slavery, racism, etc.) Judeo-Christian values changed as well?
It makes my point! As society changes, so does Judeo-Christian values.To some degree, sure. That doesn't change the basics of what we were discussing, however.
I disagree! Judeo-Christian values existed for thousands of years and had no problem with slavery or racism. Then sometime between 1865 and 1965 when society decided that racism and slavery was wrong; all of a sudden Judes-Christian values decided slavery and racism was wrong as well! Humm... What took them sooo long??? IMO you are an example of a good person doing good and using your Judeo-Christian beliefs to justify your good behavior.Judeo-Christian values are the reason for those changes, in case you don't realize that.
Did you entirely miss the part where I wrote "to some degree?"It makes my point! As society changes, so does Judeo-Christian values.
And I'm sure you are intent upon disagreeing no matter what. Right?I disagree!
I didn't miss it; I was just pointing out that my point was made.Did you entirely miss the part where I wrote "to some degree?"
I will agree when you present an argument worth agreeing with, and I hope I can expect the same from you.And I'm sure you are intent upon disagreeing no matter what. Right?
That´s what the poster pointed out, and he responded with another assertion without intending any proof at that point.It presents an assertion. It did not intend to go into any proofs at that point.
The fact that it was a mere assertion was pointed out, and another claimed that it was more than a mere assertion.So what?
An imperfect being who knows how to create ex nihilo, that's impressive imperfection right there.This what you´d need to riddle me: If everything was perfect and nobody was bored - why create imperfection and drama, which actually just means creating a problem so that it can be solved, exactly that behaviour which is born from boredom?
Well, to know how to do one thing may be impressive but it doesn´t render the performing entity perfect. The operative term I addressed was not "impressive imperfection" but "perfection".An imperfect being who knows how to create ex nihilo, that's impressive imperfection right there.
Yes, maybe. In which case all is well and we don´t have to worry about anything at all.Maybe the world is not imperfect. Maybe it perfectly is what it is, and we've been looking at sheer perfection the whole time.
Ok, let´s say this world is perfect, for the sake of the argument.Why did He create this? Being perfect, He always does the best thing.
I understand that. But neither did I demand "proof" merely because he advanced his theory or complain that none had been given.That´s what the poster pointed out, and he responded with another assertion without intending any proof at that point.
In Christian theology we distinguish between God's sovereign will and His moral will. So no moral being has to say that everything is good. But we can't fault God for ordaining morally evil events to exist. We are not in the position to judge such a being, and we don't even know how to evaluate Him. But yes, these events are perfect in the sense that they have every right to exist, because God is right to will them. So everything has meaning.But, for some reason, the (allegedly perfect) Christian God (who allegedly created this perfect - as you say - world) sees problems in the world as it is, or else there wouldn´t be a need for this entire salvation gag to solve those problems.
Ok, let´s say this world is perfect, for the sake of the argument.
So what is it with God sacrificing Jesus in order to fix that which has (in his opinion) gone wrong with this world?
And why does the bible speak of A&E as "falling" and everyone else as "sinful". Is "being sinful" just another word for "perfection"??
And what is it with the bible continuously telling us about God´s discontent with certain phenomena in the very world that He created? What is it with the idea of everyone falling "short of the mark", etc. etc.?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?