How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[2PhiloVoid]

No; that was not my answer

I wasn't saying that it was your answer.

No; the main point that I was arguing was that even Christianity has changed over time

"Change" is a vague word, though, wouldn't you agree? It almost says nothing other than that there has been some variance as to how to understand it as there is with just about everything. The counterpoint, however, is that who and what Jesus was is what Jesus was, regardless of our successful and our variable (unsuccessful) attempts to understand both Him and what He wants from us.

Regardless of all of that, I'm going back to my main reason for digging into NxNW's claim, which is one that I don't think is anything other than a half-truth. The facts of history are that a lot of people, both Christian and non-Christian, have had a hand in contributing to the ethical matrix that we have today as well as reforming past social ills, slavery being one of them.

So, let's just all be clear on that and stop making it sound as if without Humanists and other Secularists that the world would have remained in various forms of ignorance and that Christians haven't contributed to any betterment of the world whatsoever. History doesn't really leave us with that as an option of understanding.

 

[Ken-1122]

"Change" is a vague word, though, wouldn't you agree?

No. It is a very specific word; meaning different.

It almost says nothing other than that there has been some variance as to how to understand it as there is with just about everything. The counterpoint, however, is that who and what Jesus was is what Jesus was, regardless of our successful and our variable (unsuccessful) attempts to understand both Him and what He wants from us.

Regardless of all of that, I'm going back to my main reason for digging into NxNW's claim, which is one that I don't think is anything other than a half-truth. The facts of history are that a lot of people, both Christian and non-Christian, have had a hand in contributing to the ethical matrix that we have today as well as reforming past social ills, slavery being one of them.

So, let's just all be clear on that and stop making it sound as if without Humanists and other Secularists that the world would have remained in various forms of ignorance and that Christians haven't contributed to any betterment of the world whatsoever. History doesn't really leave us with that as an option of understanding.

If your claim is anything other than Christians have changed over the years, I have no disagreement with you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No. It is a very specific word; meaning different.

If your claim is anything other than Christians have changed over the years, I have no disagreement with you.

Again, going back to what NxNW said in post #261, I'm going BEYOND the mere chosen focus that you have of what he's said. Change is inexplicit and does not explain anything specific. It does not by itself as a descriptor delineate what kind of change has taken place, that is, whether the changes were oscillating, from good to bad or bad to better, or that any better changes have only come because Christians were somehow be led by the nose by Secularists and/or Humanists. All of this applies to the historical varities that can be seen in different Christians views on slavery, as well as abortion, or homosexuality, or solving poverty, or the use of Maxist teaching, and on and on and on.

So, again, it is but a half truth at best that "...secularists seem to get there first and have to drag Christianity along." Maybe you don't care about this statement that NxNW made, BUT I DO.

 

[FireDragon76]

So, your answer is: sure enough, these guys haven't been to college.

My main contention that YOU got into the middle of was with NxNW's statement, specifically the following statement:

"Interestingly, secularists seem to get there first and have to drag Christianity along."​

​

But, I get it: you want me to ignore my own gripes about how we should all be attempting to assess historical social issues on a wider scale, but you ONLY want to address your specifice gripes that you feel are pertinent, whether or not they're actuall comprehensive in nature.

OK.

So, in this case, I'll answer you and say that in generic terms that ignore other notable historic factors, we can say that that have been people who have claimed to be Christian in U.S. History and who thought that slavery of African people's was justified "per the Book." This generic sub-fact doesn't indicate that what has always been at the core of Christian morality as posited in the 1st century has actually changed its essence; but human interpretation and all of the gestalt process that through social accident comes about and is applies as praxis to that 1st century moral theology can change, has changed, sometimes through several permutations to the present day.

But, even IF I articulate my own statement about slavery in this overly generic way doesn't mean that by some default NxNW's statement above is true by default. 'Cuz, it AIN'T!

It isn't a truism to say that "secularists seem to get there first and have to drag Christianity along." At best, it's a half-truth that is mediated by 19 centuries of Christian thought amid various social and political forces. Let's get that straight!

Here's something else that some of you atheists might want to pin to your sleeves for consideration:

Aristotle and the Argument for American Slavery

Aristotle and the Argument for American Slavery By Olivia Haynie Throughout history, philosophers and authors from ancient Greece and Rome have inspired later civilizations and generations. Their i…

web.sas.upenn.edu

Oh, I have more.

I would argue "getting morality right" isn't essential to fairly understanding religion, anyways. It's more of an artifact of western culture than a universal.

Lots of people throughout human history have gotten slavery wrong, that the notion of moral progress is even compatible with Christianity, and not necessarily some kind of alien influence imposed upon it by Enlightenment humanism. Lets not forget several Enlightenment humanists defended slavery and the inferiority of non-European races, after all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would argue "getting morality right" isn't essential to fairly understanding religion, anyways. It's more of an artifact of western culture than a universal.

I will have to differ with you on this, FD. While I can agree that there isn't a comprehensive nor systematic form of Ethics presented by Jesus, He and His first century disciples and apostles communicated a locus of principles that are to be seriously considered by those who identify with Him. Plus... (see below)

Lots of people throughout human history have gotten slavery wrong, that the notion of moral progress is even compatible with Christianity, and not necessarily some kind of alien influence imposed upon it by Enlightenment humanism. Lets not forget several Enlightenment humanists defended slavery and the inferiority of non-European races, after all.

I'm not sure that Orlando Patterson would agree with all aspects of your assessment either, FD. And for whatever it's worth, I think we can say that the form of slavery practiced by American slavers in the Antebellum period of U.S. history was anything but either compatible with or caused by Christians.

Somehow, people just can't seem to study enough (if they study at all these days) to get this point through their thick heads.

 

[Bradskii]

I won't accept any association of their ideologies whatsoever!!!!

Well, when someone does associate specifically Muslim ideology with specifically Christian ideology then feel free to get as bent out of shape as you please. But if I have a problem with Christian beliefs then I will refer to them as such. And if I choose to vent on Muslim beliefs then I will refer to them as Muslim beliefs. And if my problem is with religious beliefs in general, specifically in this case as being someone's unquestioning adherence to their interpretation of what they think their deity wants, then I will refer to them as religious beliefs.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

It's 'the vast majority' is the problem. It admits to there being small minority. And if someone holds to a position that is contrary to mine, I want to know their reasons for holding to it. 'Because God is always right' is not acceptable. I want to know why He's right in that particular case.

You fundamentally misunderstand Christian Theism if you're asking that question. The reality of a source of all truth (why things are true at all), a being that while yes His behaviour is subjective to Himself for His reasons because He is sovereign and this is His Creation, sets the universal parameters of our behaviour. This Source of all truth is what allows inductive reasoning to have justification/reliability, moral claims to be facts, allows logic & reason to have a reason as to why they can be trusted or be reliable as apposed to "it's all we have" (and assumes the truth of them to say even that) and allows for the real existence of laws of logic & mathematics and their correspondence to nature.

If you're starting from a point that it is true that morals are relative then you have no reason to argue at all because the behaviour of the other person is right according to them. The very act of reasoning towards any sort of moral conclusion that is 'correct' requires a non relative standard in order to be 'correct'. There is no "right in that particular case" without a universal standard for morality, otherwise it's just mere personal preference based on feeling and can be dismissed as such or invalidated/countered by my own personal preferences because both would equally right.

The very idea of presenting evidence under moral relativity is as incoherent as saying black is white, it's inherently incompatable because in order to deem something as evidence for a position you say that there is a non relative standard to judge that evidence on. Which is why you misunderstand the position you argue against, the Moral standard is God. He has made His morality known to all men through Jesus Christ and every single one of us has sinned according to Him which is why we need to repent.

You claim there is no moral standard on which to weigh evidence because you claim all morals are relative. So the very idea of you trying to determine what is morally right refutes your own premise.

 

[Astrid]

You fundamentally misunderstand Christian Theism if you're asking that question. The reality of a source of all truth (why things are true at all), a being that while yes His behaviour is subjective to Himself for His reasons because He is sovereign and this is His Creation, sets the universal parameters of our behaviour. This Source of all truth is what allows inductive reasoning to have justification/reliability, moral claims to be facts, allows logic & reason to have a reason as to why they can be trusted or be reliable as apposed to "it's all we have" (and assumes the truth of them to say even that) and allows for the real existence of laws of logic & mathematics and their correspondence to nature.

If you're starting from a point that it is true that morals are relative then you have no reason to argue at all because the behaviour of the other person is right according to them. The very act of reasoning towards any sort of moral conclusion that is 'correct' requires a non relative standard in order to be 'correct'. There is no "right in that particular case" without a universal standard for morality, otherwise it's just mere personal preference based on feeling and can be dismissed as such or invalidated/countered by my own personal preferences because both would equally right.

The very idea of presenting evidence under moral relativity is as incoherent as saying black is white, it's inherently incompatable because in order to deem something as evidence for a position you say that there is a non relative standard to judge that evidence on. Which is why you misunderstand the position you argue against, the Moral standard is God. He has made His morality known to all men through Jesus Christ and every single one of us has sinned according to Him which is why we need to repent.

You claim there is no moral standard on which to weigh evidence because you claim all morals are relative. So the very idea of you trying to determine what is morally right refutes your own premise.

The first paragraph is boiler plate, even
I know those ideas and could have
written it for you.
Moving on-
One can claim as he will that there
is an objective moral standard
somewhere. Maybe a god has one.

It cannot be found in the Bible though
and still less in the shifting sands of
Christian opinions over time and among
sects.

That last is so obvious it hardly needs
more saying than para # 1.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, when someone does associate specifically Muslim ideology with specifically Christian ideology then feel free to get as bent out of shape as you please. But if I have a problem with Christian beliefs then I will refer to them as such. And if I choose to vent on Muslim beliefs then I will refer to them as Muslim beliefs. And if my problem is with religious beliefs in general, specifically in this case as being someone's unquestioning adherence to their interpretation of what they think their deity wants, then I will refer to them as religious beliefs.

You don't seem to want to "get" my point. Nice obfuscation there, Bradskii.

Keep in mind that what I'm ALSO getting at is that I"m not going to accept responsibility for what others do who claim to be Christian. I'm not paying their moral (or more specifically their immoral) tab, no matter what your "demands" are in this regard.

If someone claims to be a Christian and then murders someone, then I'm going to say that he is No True Scotsman. And what's more, I'll press the POINT of it like a wrecking ball since whether you or I believe the New Testament writings or not---we can even assume they're false for the sake of hypotheticals since you go in for that kind of thing---those same writings still say what they say about "authenticity of faith."

That there are and will be False Christs, False prophets, False teachers, and..................... that "no murderer (like Khan) has eternal life" hardly needs much in the way of any explication.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

The first paragraph is boiler plate, even
I know those ideas and could have
written it for you.
Moving on-
One can claim as he will that there
is an objective moral standard
somewhere. Maybe a god has one.

It cannot be found in the Bible though
and still less in the shifting sands of
Christian opinions over time and among
sects.

That last is so obvious it hardly needs
more saying than para # 1.

If it's so obvious then refute it please

[Edit: If you claim there's an objective moral standard somewhere then your belief in what morals are true =/= relative morals. In fact if you're reasoning based upon that standard then it's the opposite position. Don't equate belief in what is true/correct with subjective truth]

 

[Bradskii]

The very idea of presenting evidence under moral relativity is as incoherent as saying black is white, it's inherently incompatable because in order to deem something as evidence for a position you say that there is a non relative standard to judge that evidence on.

You are not alone in utterly failing to understand secular (and hence relative) morality.

If I hold to a position on any moral matter then it's not a case of me ho humming and picking a position on some arbitrary whim, or a vague preference, and then suggesting 'hey, it's right for me but gee, as it's only my personal opinion, then you have as much right to your opinion as I do.' Leaving you to get all uppity and claim that I cannot therefore impose my will onto you.

Abject, complete and total nonsense.

If I have thought long and hard about a moral matter, then I will tell you in no uncertain terms why I personally know that I am right. And I will give you chapter and verse, facts and figures and heaven knows what else to show you why I have come to that conclusion. That is not therefore an example of objective morality. It is still subjective because I am the one deciding the truth of the matter.

Now I don't care in the slightest if you think there is an objective answer, as opposed to my relative one. Mine is right as far as I am concerned and I will hold to my position until you convince me otherwise. And for that you will need a stack of facts to which we can both agree, and a good argument. That's what I'll be supplying and you don't get excused from doing the same.

If you have a moral position then you'd better be prepared to back it up. I'll be backing mine up and the standard by which I decide what that position is is the accuracy of the facts, the quality of the argument and my personal conscience.

 

[Astrid]

If it's so obvious then refute it please

[Edit: If you claim there's an objective moral standard somewhere then your belief in what morals are true =/= relative morals. In fact if you're reasoning based upon that standard then it's the opposite position. Don't equate belief in what is true/correct with subjective truth]

Did you even read what I said?
I sure did not claim any objective
moral standard exists. and I haven't a
clue what you want me to " refute".

 

[Bradskii]

Keep in mind that what I'm ALSO getting at is that I"m not going to accept responsibility for what others do who claim to be Christian. I'm not paying their moral (or more specifically their immoral) tab, no matter what your "demands" are in this regard.

Yet again, if someone suggests to you (let alone 'demands' it) that you should accept that responsibility, then use that shift key and pick any colour and size of font that you deem necessary to vent your spleen. But nobody has. Must I point out that this thread isn't about you? So how about you cut the faux outrage...

 

[Ken-1122]

Again, going back to what NxNW said in post #261, I'm going BEYOND the mere chosen focus that you have of what he's said. Change is inexplicit and does not explain anything specific. It does not by itself as a descriptor delineate what kind of change has taken place, that is, whether the changes were oscillating, from good to bad or bad to better, or that any better changes have only come because Christians were somehow be led by the nose by Secularists and/or Humanists. All of this applies to the historical varities that can be seen in different Christians views on slavery, as well as abortion, or homosexuality, or solving poverty, or the use of Maxist teaching, and on and on and on.

So, again, it is but a half truth at best that "...secularists seem to get there first and have to drag Christianity along." Maybe you don't care about this statement that NxNW made, BUT I DO.

It seems to me, post #261 was mainly about the idea that Christianity has changed also. The comment that secularists seem to get there first seems to be rather a side note opinion rather than something claimed as documented fact.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

It is still subjective because I am the one deciding the truth of the matter.

The inability to reach the truth =/= subjective truth. It equals belief. You're not deciding truth, you're deciding what you believe the truth is. You can be wrong and you will be wrong according to the standard on which you judge the moral matters. What you've just described is not moral relativity Brad.

Now I don't care in the slightest if you think there is an objective answer, as opposed to my relative one. Mine is right as far as I am concerned and I will hold to my position until you convince me otherwise. And for that you will need a stack of facts to which we can both agree, and a good argument. That's what I'll be supplying and you don't get excused from doing the same.

If you have a moral position then you'd better be prepared to back it up. I'll be backing mine up and the standard by which I decide what that position is is the accuracy of the facts, the quality of the argument and my personal conscience.

If there's no ability to determine what is true then what's the point of being on here discussing lol. If you're going to be correct according to your standard then I will be correct according to mine. What's the point of discussing? Surely you see the problem here, if we disagree on morals or the standards they're based upon then in order to settle the disputes we would need to assume a universal standard, making morals not relative. Why do you keep conflating belief with truth? I'm assuming you don't use the same reasoning of "subjectively deciding the truth of the matter" for science so why do you all of a sudden use that reasoning for this?

If I have thought long and hard about a moral matter, then I will tell you in no uncertain terms why I personally know that I am right. And I will give you chapter and verse, facts and figures and heaven knows what else to show you why I have come to that conclusion. That is not therefore an example of objective morality. It is still subjective because I am the one deciding the truth of the matter.

You can't be right about morals if they're relative, stop conflating belief in what is right with subjective truth.

Did you even read what I said?
I sure did not claim any objective
moral standard exists.

One can claim as he will that there
is an objective moral standard
somewhere. Maybe a god has one.

I haven't a
clue what you want me to " refute".

That in order to say morals are correct you need to assume a standard on which to judge them on (or present evidence for claims), making morality not subjective but instead saying that there are correct parameters for behaviour as you're using a standard to judge different behaviours/moral actions. I would also like to know your epistemological justifications for your morality and why certain behaviours are considered good, also I would like to know why you would use those presuppositions and if they're assumed or not. It's ok if they are, all worldviews are circular. It's just that some make less sense than others and can't account for reality (like inductive reasoning, laws of logic & etc).

 

[Astrid]

The inability to reach the truth =/= subjective truth. It equals belief. You're not deciding truth, you're deciding what you believe the truth is. You can be wrong and you will be wrong according to the standard on which you judge the moral matters. What you've just described is not moral relativity Brad.

If there's no ability to determine what is true then what's the point of being on here discussing lol. If you're going to be correct according to your standard then I will be correct according to mine. What's the point of discussing? Surely you see the problem here, if we disagree on morals or the standards they're based upon then in order to settle the disputes we would need to assume a universal standard, making morals not relative. Why do you keep conflating belief with truth? I'm assuming you don't use the same reasoning of "subjectively deciding the truth of the matter" for science so why do you all of a sudden use that reasoning for this?

You can't be right about morals if they're relative, stop conflating belief in what is right with subjective truth.




That in order to say morals are correct then you need to assume a standard on which to judge them on, making morality not subjective but instead saying that there are correct parameters for behaviour. I would also like to know your epistemological justifications for your morality and why certain behaviours are considered good, also I would like to know why you would use those presuppositions or if you've assumed the truth of them in order to establish right morality.

It's incredibly simple what I said.

There is no objective standard.

The how / why of my morality is another
topic, not for now. I have an appointment in
Central to get to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It seems to me, post #261 was mainly about the idea that Christianity has changed also. The comment that secularists seem to get there first seems to be rather a side note opinion rather than something claimed as documented fact.

Maybe. But let's see if he'll back you up in agreeing with you that what "seems to be a side note" actually was merely meant to be just that and nothing more.

If he can do that, then I can offer an apology to you. Otherwise, he makes it sound as if it hadn't been for the leading of Secularists, Christians would never make "better" ethical evaluations and/or judgments at any time in history, past or present.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

It's incredibly simple what I said.

There is no objective standard.

If there's no objective standard then you can't condemn behaviour, only say that it's different. That leaves the thorny issue of how law courts justify legislation that encourages and condemns moral behaviours, I don't know how they weigh evidence for one position or another without a standard on which to do so.

The how / why of my morality is another
topic, not for now. I have an appointment in
Central to get to.

Ok no worries . Have a safe trip and I hope your appointment goes well . God bless.

 

[Ken-1122]

That in order to say morals are correct you need to assume a standard on which to judge them on (or present evidence for claims), making morality not subjective but instead saying that there are correct parameters for behaviour as you're using a standard to judge different behaviours/moral actions.

The reason morals are subjective is because there is no objective standard for which to judge all moral issues with

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

The reason morals are subjective is because there is no objective standard for which to judge all moral issues with

Then how do you determine what behaviours are considered 'good'? Something being good or bad or wrong or right assumes an objective standard. Otherwise it's just preference and nobody is right or wrong, only different.