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.
durangodawood asked for a statement from people who participated in this thread. I gave mine.So you've said many times... but you still haven't made any attempt to explain how or why it's true with God.
... and seemingly knowable to no one.
durangodawood asked for a statement from people who participated in this thread. I gave mine.
Maybe I misunderstood what durangodawood was asking for. It seems that the discussion needed some closure, so I added my closing statement. As durangodawood wrote, anyone can add what they want.And I asked you to defend that statement... it's a forum... that's kind of what we do.
Maybe I misunderstood what durangodawood was asking for. It seems that the discussion needed some closure, so I added my closing statement. As durangodawood wrote, anyone can add what they want.
I thought this would have been plenty of time for you all to figure it out.
Ive learned that this topic is DOA because people dont agree on whats meant by "objective morality" right off the bat.I agree, that the discussion may be in need of some closure. In fact @durangodawood's obviously facetious post seemed like just the right point.
I guess not.
It sort of blows my mind that people call divinely decreed morality "objective". Its like the opposite of objective - even if true.
You really are reluctant to offer your views on morality when asked directly.? The ball is still in your court and remains there until you answer the simple question.
I'll repeat it as you don't seem to understand the human act: Why did you tell your "partner" (aka wife), that she was subject to you? Hint: See post#318 ... "Give me the moral act that your contemplating specifying the moral end(s) you foresee".
Is it a moral position to hold that the wife should be subject to the husband. Of course. The act is treating her in that way. The end is that she is subject to her husband. Do you think I should proceed with this act?
Indeed. Take 'Do not kill'. Straight off the bat you will have people telling you it's not 'do not kill'. It's 'do not murder'. Which is a legal term. So you can take a life if it is legally allowed. And someone, at some point, at some time has to decide whether it's legal or not. Which will change over time, from country to country and even state to state. So the command should be 'Do not kill (unless the local statutes consider it lawful at the time of the act. Please refer to a legal representative in your jurisdiction for further details).Ive learned that this topic is DOA because people dont agree on whats meant by "objective morality" right off the bat.
I think the word "objective" when it comes to morality means neutral or just or fair judgement in all and every single case or in all circumstances or beliefs. To cover all cases this way means that it probably all has to be written down or fully spelled out 100%, 100% accurately in writing. Which could be a lot, or would be a very, very long book, or writing, to cover all and every single case, or every single exception to the normal rules in any or all cases, etc, 100% fairly and accurately and truly justly, etc. It is my belief that most exceptions to the normal rules would be in the minority, and that there are some rules that could work most of the time for the majority, etc, and that those could be short, or simple, but not at all short or simple with all that would need to be considered/taken into account to bring true justice to the minority, etc. But in this I am talking about the difference between those who are considered guilty, and those who might be considered 100% innocent, or would get off scott free, etc.Jumping in here to see what youve all decided. Youve had ample time to arrive at some proper conclusions.
So, can non theist morality be objective?
What do we mean by morality being objective?
Anyone is free to answer, since you all should be in agreement by this point.
There are occasions when taking control of marital decisions can be a form of abuse: What Is Coercive Control and How to Recognise the SignsSince @o_mlly seems to be incapable of answering this question, I'll answer it for him. o_mlly believes that it's perfectly moral for the wife to be subject to her husband. What he's hoping for is for you to delineate the exact forms that this subjugation will take. I.E, will you simply make marital decisions for you and your wife, or will this subjugation include abusing your wife?
Quite often, taking control of marital decisions can be a form of abuse: What Is Coercive Control and How to Recognise the Signs
IOW's, true justice or judgment needs to include all of the when, where, what, how, and why's of all and everything always, etc, and when/what/how/where, etc, one should draw a line, etc. And only an always all-knowing God, or God-like being, who always has always/always does know "all" and everything always, etc, can decide/calculate/do all of this 100% truly accurately always, or 100% fairly or 100% truly justly always, etc. I don't think the world could handle or contain trying to write it all down or out in all it's full details fully, or in it's full/whole entirety fully, etc.I think the word "objective" when it comes to morality means neutral or just or fair judgement in all and every single case or in all circumstances or beliefs. To cover all cases this way means that it probably all has to be written down or fully spelled out 100%, 100% accurately in writing. Which could be a lot, or would be a very, very long book, or writing, to cover all and every single case, or every single exception to the normal rules in any or all cases, etc, 100% fairly and accurately and truly justly, etc. It is my belief that most exceptions to the normal rules would be in the minority, and that there are some rules that could work most of the time for the majority, etc, and that those could be short, or simple, but not at all short or simple with all that would need to be considered/taken into account to bring true justice to the minority, etc. But in his I am talking about the difference between those who are considered guilty, and those who might be considered 100% innocent, etc.
Because even with the guilty, then there still also probably needs to be consequences in a matter of degrees, and even in the majority of cases in which one might be considered guilty, that would mean considering most or all of the circumstances, which would add even a lot more words to the written down rules or writing in addition to how already long or big that book would be in describing every single individual case in which someone would or will be considered completely innocent of the crime, etc.
God Bless.
It is also a moral position to hold that the husband should love and cherish his wife. Such a disposition precludes any and all use of violence.Is it a moral position to hold that the wife should be subject to the husband. Of course. ... There are occasions when taking control of marital decisions can be a form of abuse: What Is Coercive Control and How to Recognise the Signs
Did Bradski lend you his mind reading headgear? If so, apparently you forgot to plug it in.Since @o_mlly seems to be incapable of answering this question, I'll answer it for him. o_mlly believes that it's perfectly moral for the wife to be subject to her husband. What he's hoping for is for you to delineate the exact forms that this subjugation will take. I.E, will you simply make marital decisions for you and your wife, or will this subjugation include abusing your wife?
Projecting again? Well, that's strike three and you're out.You really are reluctant to offer your views on morality when asked directly.
I didn't mention violence. I'm still waiting to hear if she should be subject to me. How long is this going to take?It is also a moral position to hold that the husband should love and cherish his wife. Such a disposition precludes any and all use of violence.
Coercion. Look it up.I didn't mention violence.
Even if an Imam presided at your wedding, it still wouldn't matter .... you're still an atheist, right?But to give you heads start on the legality of the matter ...
? You reported that you told her she was subject to you. It was your morality story but what you would not tell us is why you felt a need to tell her so. Why not? I think I know why but I tried in vain to get you to tell us. But now it's too late; no more strikes left. Game over. The OP got my answer, nothing more to add. So long.I'm still waiting to hear if she should be subject to me.
In this matter it often doesn't involve violence, which makes it harder to detect. I do know something about this subject.Coercion. Look it up.
It was a civil wedding.Even if an Imam presided at your wedding, it still wouldn't matter .... you're still an atheist, right?
And I want to know what you think the moral position might be. Seems like you're not keen on telling us. I can't see the point in holding to a moral position if you're not prepared to back it up. But you be you...? You reported that you told her she was subject to you.
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?