Assuming you are right, what is the advantage of having the Christian point of reference over mine?
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.
Assuming you are right, what is the advantage of having the Christian point of reference over mine?It’s fixed, just like the elephant in the parable about the six blind men.
What isn’t fixed, for you, is the ability to say why something is right or wrong. All you can put forth is feelings.
Ahh... so when pressed to defend your absurd position, you would rather run away with your tail between your leg? Yeah.......I'm not surprised; I've seen it before.
The advantage is that you have access to truth, and not just feelings.Assuming you are right, what is the advantage of having the Christian point of reference over mine?
Point to something you've said that I have not addressed, and I'll address it.It's a little early to be declaring yourself King of the Jungle, isn't it? You didn't address anything I've thus far said, and I'm pretty sure most folks here reading this thread can see that.
I have access to truth? Why is the Christian point of reference better than that?The advantage is that you have access to truth, and not just feelings.
Point to something you've said that I have not addressed, and I'll address it.
Because it’s true. Why do you think it’s not?I have access to truth? Why is the Christian point of reference better than that?
IOW; another unsubstantiated claim. I'm sure if I had neglected to comment on your claims, you would have been more than happy to point that out to me.Nope. I'll just let you trot around over in your territory, puffing out your chest in a self-assured, resolute, non-academic manner.
Make another absurd claim again, and I will dismantle it again. Fair enough?When you have something of substance to share with us so as to "show up" the complete absurdity of what I've so far said (...ie. again, "so far"), then maybe knock on my door.
Unless the Christian point of reference is aligned with mine, it can't be the truth. I find truth better than non-truthBecause it’s true. Why do you think it’s not?
But you don’t have a truth. You have feelings. Not only can’t you say why something is wrong, you have no solid basis for right and wrong.Unless the Christian point of reference is aligned with mine, it can't be the truth. I find truth better than non-truth
Another? ... so, let me get this straight: what you're really trying to imply is that you're not trotting around here in your own solipsistic perceptual space, making bold but superficial claims against Christians (and whomever else, even other secularists with alternative views to yourself, I suppose too), all the while continuing in your bold assertions about the veracity of your own private perceptionyet having nothing to back up and support your point of view other than that you have your own private moral perception (one that you're not particularly trans-parent about epistemologiclaly or socially (where your behind the scenes network of friends might put additional ideas in your mouth as to "what to say to all of those idiotic Christians....)IOW; another unsubstantiated claim. I'm sure if I had neglected to comment on your claims, you would have been more than happy to point that out to me.
Make another absurd claim again, and I will dismantle it again. Fair enough?
Peace
They aren't views. They are commands. Totally at odds with each other.It is a fixed point because there are reasons for the differing views.
Your 'principle', for what it's worth, is nothing more than saying that people don't like to get hurt. Well, I don't think you're breaking any new ground here. Apart from the fact that it's not a moral principle but a basic position anyone would need from which to develop a moral principle. And as a 'standard' you admit that you don't even have any moral authority associated with it:Absurd to you; and I do so much want to see your efforts to "dismantle" what it is you so far think I've said. Because, so far, I see no demonstration on your part to "dismantle" my UUMP that I use more or less as a point of coherent reference (as briefly described back up in posts #347, #370). Whether it's axiomatic can be debated, sure, but I have faith in humanity to a moderate degree and I think you'll find few allies in your attempted dismantling of it.
..... Maybe go back and read all that I actually said in relation to the limits and processing for this principle that I know I spoke about, however briefly. I'd suggest that you don't cut me short here. I said nothing about this principle being either groundbreaking or a one that will stand on its own as far as serving as an ethical framework, let alone an authority..Your 'principle', for what it's worth, is nothing more than saying that people don't like to get hurt. Well, I don't think you're breaking any new ground here. Apart from the fact that it's not a moral principle but a basic position anyone would need from which to develop a moral principle. And as a 'standard' you admit that you don't even have any moral authority associated with it:
"A "standard," however, requires a moral authority and a humanly recognizable cognition about that authority. It's this second part that I'm unable to directly produce."
Oh, there is a moral authority. And it resides indirectly within the human species and it comes out especially when self seeking individualists (or morally relative socieites) assert themselves in extreme and socially disharmonious ways (usually physically and politically) against many, many other moral actors (or moral socieites) who do understand the unspoken existence of the rationality and social functionality of the UUMP.Which is precisely what the discussion is about. Whether there is or is not a moral authority. And, in passing, you ain't going to be able to produce one because one doesn't exist.
There have been umpteen posts on reciprocal altruism, empathy and the evolutionary basis for what we might describe as a conscience which dictates, to a great extent, what we describe as moral acts. It's been explained in some detail. And your 'principle' in response is simply that people don't like getting smacked in the mouth. And...that's it.
You keep bringing this up as if it's something special. You've even given it an acronym for heaven's sake...'the unspoken existence of the rationality and social functionality of the UUMP.'No. That's not it and yet again, it's not meant to serve as a one-stop shop for some moral directives and the authorities who will not only further delineate it in WRITTEN form, but also enforce it. The UUMP is simply the first step, the opening of the door, so to speak. If you can't realize this, I pity you.
You keep bringing this up as if it's something special. You've even given it an acronym for heaven's sake...'the unspoken existence of the rationality and social functionality of the UUMP.'
Maybe you think it's thoughtful and insightful. Profound. It isn't. It's a deepity. It's pretentious. It adds nothing whatsoever to the conversation. Let me know when you have something constructive to say.
It's a sad one because all you have is an emotive reaction in which you "Hope to God" that God doesn't exist and that His Son didn't exist or rise again from the Dead. But I get it---some people are willing to "take that risk."
No; on post #404 you said I have access to the truth not just feelings. Are you changing it now?But you don’t have a truth. You have feelings. Not only can’t you say why something is wrong, you have no solid basis for right and wrong.
You're wrong.Another? ... so, let me get this straight: what you're really trying to imply is that you're not trotting around here in your own solipsistic perceptual space, making bold but superficial claims against Christians (and whomever else, even other secularists with alternative views to yourself, I suppose too), all the while continuing in your bold assertions about the veracity of your own private perceptionyet having nothing to back up and support your point of view other than that you have your own private moral perception (one that you're not particularly trans-parent about epistemologiclaly or socially (where your behind the scenes network of friends might put additional ideas in your mouth as to "what to say to all of those idiotic Christians....)
Does the above sound like I'm close? Or am I throughly wrong that you're pushing what is essentially a kind of "Khan-job" on everyone else here?
On those posts you spoke of a Universal Moral principle. When I tried to get more details of this principle, you refused to give answers.Absurd to you; and I do so much want to see your efforts to "dismantle" what it is you so far think I've said. Because, so far, I see no demonstration on your part to "dismantle" my UUMP that I use more or less as a point of coherent reference (as briefly described back up in posts #347, #370). Whether it's axiomatic can be debated, sure, but I have faith in humanity to a moderate degree and I think you'll find few allies in your attempted dismantling of it.
Of course not! But the fact that I don’t want it done to me, does not make it a universal moral principle.Now we come to the rational demonstration of it and in this demonstration all I have to do is ask the following questions to show the innane psychological quality of your personal moral point of view: Do you really want to go on record here and admit that you don't mind if someone applies to you the "Cry Uncle Scenario" I've described (or worse)???
Not at odds. Different reasons. Remember, it’s important to understand the whole thing, and not just pick a line here or there to try to advance your view, like you did. And like you did with my post.They aren't views. They are commands. Totally at odds with each other.
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?