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.
As a rich land owner, I shouldn't make offers that are not a fair wage. You don't think it's immoral of me to take advantage of your desperate situation?Making the offer was perfectly legitimate. You can accept it, counteroffer, or not take it.
No. That is not what rehabilitated means.You said the bully stopped, so he was rehabilitated.
It was good and best for both the bully, and for everyone else present, and for everyone who heard about it later.What was done was for the good of getting the bully to stop, not for the good of giving the bully what he deserved, so it wasn't for the sake of justice.
No. Everyone agreed because it was right and good and best.No, you gave "everyone agreed" as the reason that it was right and good.
If you take advantage, that's human and normal.As a rich land owner, I shouldn't make offers that are not a fair wage. You don't think it's immoral of me to take advantage of your desperate situation?
And it's human and normal to be immoral. Is it moral to take advantage?If you take advantage, that's human and normal.
If an offer is made and accepted, there's no morality involved.And it's human and normal to be immoral. Is it moral to take advantage?
Alright, then you don't have a problem with rich folk taking advantage of poor folk, and we'll just disagree then.If an offer is made and accepted, there's no morality involved.
The rich have oppressed and taken advantage of the poor for thousands of years.Alright, then you don't have a problem with rich folk taking advantage of poor folk, and we'll just disagree then.
I asked if it was immoral for a rich person to take advantage of a poor person, and you said that if the poor person agrees, then morality isn't involved. You just said it's human and normal of me to take advantage.The rich have oppressed and taken advantage of the poor for thousands of years.
THAT is NOT what you asked about.
Right.I asked if it was immoral for a rich person to take advantage of a poor person, and you said that if the poor person agrees, then morality isn't involved. You just said it's human and normal of me to take advantage.
You're getting to the heart of the problem with Christians overly Platonic thinking. Good and bad aren't absolutes, they are relational and therefore relative.
Christian theology tried to shoehorn Platonism into their religion, and it almost worked. But one might as well be a Platonist, then, it would be alot less of a bore to the rest of us. Platonists never conquered Europe at the point of a sword and burned witches at the stake or persecuted homosexuals.
"Couterfeit" Christianity (or sometimes called "Churchianity") , NOT true Christians.Also it's worth mentioning that Christians never actually conquered Europe at the point of a sword. The Romans accomplished that well before the empire converted to Christianity, and engaged in quite a bit of persecution with no clear religious motivation themselves, so this narrative that Christianity is the root of all evil doesn't hold much water.
Wouldn't it be nice if God used hell to deal with non-Christians that way? In other words, imagine if God secretly has no intention of sending anybody to hell regardless of their acceptance of Jesus, but he wants to use hell to motivate a few more people to turn their lives around by becoming Christians. Maybe in reality God has a second heaven in mind for the non-Christians, or maybe God will simply allow them to rest in peace.That is never the way in Scripture, nor from the Father --- the deception you describe "makes sense" to those corrupted by the world, in line with the world, the pernicious world.
When you mentioned the wish to ditch revelation through Platonism does the emphasis on private mystical experiences that you mentioned make that impossible? I guess I am wondering if you are defining revelation such that it doesn't include private mystical experiences?As someone who is in fact a Platonist, and has in the past tried to ditch revelation, I would like to point out that the Platonists were philosophical elitists. They were not exactly egalitarian, and were much more concerned with their own private mystical experiences than liberating the oppressed.
When you mentioned the wish to ditch revelation through Platonism does the emphasis on private mystical experiences that you mentioned make that impossible? I guess I am wondering if you are defining revelation such that it doesn't include private mystical experiences?
No, I was defining revelation in the more public sense. I've never really had an issue with the notion of private revelation--that probably has something to do with the distinction between miracles and mysticism. We have much less difficulty wrapping our heads around subjective mysticism than objective miracles these days, which is kind of interesting.
Aren't a great many "public" revelations really private, such as Saul's conversion? Yet his writings make up a majority of the New Testament.
Also, many scholars are doubtful as to the extent that Jesus' resurrection was a public event, an "objective" event, and not something that can be explained as an unusual but not uncommon spiritual experience, such as after-death communication.
My example is very simple. If I sock you in the nose, then I deserve to be socked in the nose. Do you disagree that is justice, fairness, equity?
I disagree that your example is about justice though. Keeping a promise isn't justice. Paying a fair wage is. What if your property is 100 acres? Thirty dollars isn't a fair wage for a yard that size, so you keeping your promise isn't justice. What if I do a terrible job? It isn't fair for you to have to pay me the full thirty dollars. Being a liar is bad, sure, but it isn't about fairness or equity.
I disagree that your example is about justice though. Keeping a promise isn't justice.
Paying a fair wage is.
What if your property is 100 acres? Thirty dollars isn't a fair wage for a yard that size, so you keeping your promise isn't justice.
What if I do a terrible job? It isn't fair for you to have to pay me the full thirty dollars.
Being a liar is bad, sure, but it isn't about fairness or equity.
It's a new thought of mine, but now that I'm thinking about it, no. Not intrinsic value, anyways.And you don't think equity and fairness have intrinsic value?
I disagree that your example is about justice though. Keeping a promise isn't justice. Paying a fair wage is. What if your property is 100 acres? Thirty dollars isn't a fair wage for a yard that size, so you keeping your promise isn't justice. What if I do a terrible job? It isn't fair for you to have to pay me the full thirty dollars. Being a liar is bad, sure, but it isn't about fairness or equity.Suppose I offer you $30 to mow my lawn. After you mow the lawn consider two of my options: pay you or don't. The first is just, the second is not. It is just--ceteris paribus--to fulfill one's promises.
My example is very simple. If I sock you in the nose, then I deserve to be socked in the nose. Do you disagree that is justice, fairness, equity?
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?