FrenchyBearpaw
Take time for granite.
Unless you advocate honor killings, and slavery, then your morals are relative also. You can't have it both ways, tiger.
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.
If you are a moral relativist, which I gather you are, then your view prohibits you from making meaningful statements regarding moral obligation i.e. statements regarding whether an action is right and wrong.
Interesting! So it is relative to the god you are referring to.
That is correct.
If a person is convinced enough in what they perceived to be a command to murder their family and think a god has told them to do it, then they would consider themselves obligated to do so.
This is self-evident I think.
Right now I want you to answer the question I asked you. It was quite simple I think.
Is genocide objectively wrong?
Unless you advocate honor killings, and slavery, then your morals are relative also. You can't have it both ways, tiger.
Not at all.
Where?
You said that morality is relative to the god a person is referring to. Theist A may refer to Yahweh for his morality and theist B may refer to another god for his morality. Your morality is relative to the deity you believe in and what you believe they command. It would seem that you are relativist of some sort.
That has nothing to do with whether or not objective moral values or duties exist.
That simply is to say that if I am a Christian, I am going to believe it is right to pray for my enemies.
If I am a Muslim, I am going to believe it is right to blow them up.
This is just one example.
Ok good. You believe in objective moral values and duties then. This means you are a moral realist.
Strange. Nothing about schoolchildren in there.Speaking to the Christians in Corinth, many of which had been engaged in gross and wicked sin prior to hearing the gospel and accepting Christ, the Apostle Paul by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes:
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Bold mine.
So you demand that I answer your question on what I consider objectively wrong prior to you explaining what you mean by objectively wrong? Brilliant.Do you agree that genocide is objectively wrong?
Your evasion of my questions provide all the answers I expect of someone that has painted themselves into a corner.If you will answer that question in the affirmative, then I will answer your question. If not, then neither will I answer your question.
Another of your unsubstantiated quips, as you call them.Moral nihilism and moral relativism are fundamentally the same. ...
Is genocide objectively wrong?
How cute!That is not the correct understanding of objective moral duties.
Since your understanding of objective moral duties is incorrect, the rest of your argument is incorrect or based on a strawman.
Their relativism prohibits persons from making statements regarding allegedly absolute moral obligation.I apologize for not being clear.
What I meant to say is that as a moral relativist, your relativism prohibits you from making meaningful statements regarding moral obligation. I.e. statements regarding what is right and what is wrong.
Remember when first he came here and kept asserting that atheists don´t exist?Another of your unsubstantiated quips, as you call them.
No that's NOT a fact. You, the great and all-knowing Tiberius, are in no position to make any such proclamation. Pardon me while I look behind that curtain ...
I see a man pulling levers. You know what? I don't like suffering either. I suffer more than most, but a few suffer more than I do and still live.
Let me give you an anecdote about this. Over the past few days, in the Christian only section there has been someone who sports an Eastern Orthodox icon (EO) posting a lot in one thread. Now they claim to be "pre-denominational," an obvious attempt to appeal to those who identify with being "non-denominational." And yet most from that camp still come across at the end of the day as touting their Church as being "the thing." Not this guy. He actually conveys the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Him crucified, as though no divisions in the Church ever happened or even matter.
What makes him different? Suffering. He's been through cancer. Don't ever pretend "suffering does not need to exist."
Ok so you look suffering in the face and can't recognize it. You see its value anyway.
This is a good working definition of selfishness, as well as immaturity.`Just wait til you stumble onto one for faith - that'll really blow you away!
Moving the goalposts - the question was killing because someone was a particular race. And that is NOT what you have in your example. (Nor any other)
Is genocide objectively wrong?
If you can say that it is your position that it is, then I will answer your question. If not, then I will not answer your question.
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?