PDA

View Full Version : Where are your tithes going?



Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 08:38 AM
... or offerings for that matter...

Are they going to pay for the illegal and immoral activities of your church leaders?

From the Boston.com News (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/08/29/judge_dioceses_assets_to_pay_sex_abuse_victims/), the Boston Globe web site


Diocese's assets to pay sex-abuse victims
Wash. ruling may have local effect

A decision by a federal bankruptcy judge in Spokane, Wash., who ruled that the assets of the Catholic diocese could be liquidated to pay victims of sexual abuse by priests, could have far-reaching implications for dioceses across the country, including in Boston, leaders of two lay reform groups said yesterday.

Peter Borre, cochairman of the Council of Parishes, a group that is assisting parishioners who oppose the closing of their parishes, said he believes the ruling might encourage more victims of clergy sexual abuse to come forward and file suit against church officials, two years after about 550 parishioners in Boston settled their claims with the archdiocese.

''We are going to see a significant surge in claims because, to put it a bit crassly, sexual-abuse victims and their attorneys will now see much larger sums of money available for settlement," he said. ''Everything within the diocese is now potentially on the table if it comes to Chapter 11 proceedings."

...

That last line should give some folks pause... in a big legal settlement, all church assets may be on the table for dissolution or sale when the leadership screws up.

It pays parishoners, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, to watch their leadership more carefully. :think:

fool
August 31st, 2005, 08:44 AM
... or offerings for that matter...

Are they going to pay for the illegal and immoral activities of your church leaders?

From the Boston.com News (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/08/29/judge_dioceses_assets_to_pay_sex_abuse_victims/), the Boston Globe web site



That last line should give some folks pause... in a big legal settlement, all church assets may be on the table for dissolution or sale when the leadership screws up.

It pays parishoners, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, to watch their leadership more carefully. :think:
Who cares about there stuff, I want to see all the leaders who knew about the abuse behind bars.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 08:47 AM
... or offerings for that matter...

Are they going to pay for the illegal and immoral activities of your church leaders?
"immoral activities"?????

"immoral activities"?????

"immoral activities"?????

Zakath did you just type.... "immoral activities"?????

Please tell us how a moral reletivist could determine such a thing. :)

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 08:48 AM
Who cares about there stuff, I want to see all the leaders who knew about the abuse behind bars.
Well, that won't happen very often when you've got "God's Man" in the White House... :rolleyes:

Heck, the justice department isn't even allowed to prosecute KPMG for billions in admitted tax fraud!

fool
August 31st, 2005, 08:52 AM
"immoral activities"?????

"immoral activities"?????

"immoral activities"?????

Zakath did you just type.... "immoral activities"?????

Please tell us how a moral reletivist could determine such a thing. :)
Molesting children is illeagal in the time and place where they did it, so is covering it up.

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 08:52 AM
"immoral activities"?????

"immoral activities"?????

"immoral activities"?????No need to get excited, we read it the first time. :rolleyes:


Zakath did you just type.... "immoral activities"?????Yup, that I did. :thumb:


Please tell us how a moral reletivist could determine such a thing. :)In case you haven't been following it, these organizations have been covering up the sexual abuse of minors by pastors. That is conspiracy to escape proscecution, which is illegal and immoral; as was the abuse in the first place.

It is immoral because it unecessarily injures others.

Tell us, Knight, don't you think that sexual abuse of minors by pastors is immoral?

Don't you think that covering up such activities is immoral, as well?

:think:

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:03 AM
Molesting children is illeagal in the time and place where they did it, so is covering it up.Do you define immoral as anything that is illegal?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:04 AM
It is immoral because it unecessarily injures others.Why is it immoral to unecessarily injure others?

fool
August 31st, 2005, 09:07 AM
Do you define immoral as anything that is illegal?
No, but in this case their activities were illegal so we'll go with that. If at some point haveing forced sex with minors becomes legal it will still be wrong and I'll have to fall back on the "because I say so" arguement.

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 09:07 AM
Why is it immoral to unecessarily injure others?
Because as a humanist, I believe it is my obligation to refrain from unecessarily harming another human.

I think we all know you do not believe that to be sufficient basis for making moral decisions.

You asked for my basis of judging morality, I gave it to you. I don't expect you to agree with it. :nono:

fool
August 31st, 2005, 09:08 AM
Why is it immoral to unecessarily injure others?
Cause it's unecessary :doh:

fool
August 31st, 2005, 09:10 AM
Because as a humanist, I believe it is my obligation to refrain from unecessarily harming another human.

I think we all know you do not believe that to be sufficient basis for making moral decisions.

You asked for my basis of judging morality, I gave it to you. I don't expect you to agree with it. :nono:
You're a Humanist?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:11 AM
Because as a humanist, I believe it is my obligation to refrain from unecessarily harming another human.

I think we all know you do not believe that to be sufficient basis for making moral decisions.

You asked for my basis of judging morality, I gave it to you. I don't expect you to agree with it. :nono:Maybe to others it is not immoral to unecessarily injure others.

As a moral relitivist what makes you right and them wrong?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:12 AM
Cause it's unecessary :doh:According to whom?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:13 AM
I'll have to fall back on the "because I say so" arguement.Fair enough, I will take that as a concession and therefore focus on Zakath.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time. :)

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 09:13 AM
Maybe to others it is not immoral to unecessarily injure others.Society disagrees with them so that's their problem, isn't it?


As a moral relitivist what makes you right and them wrong?Similar to what drives you - belief. Differing objects of belief, but similar human processes.

BTW, nice attempt at thread hijacking. ;)

Do you actually have anything germane to the topic of the Opening Post, or not?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:18 AM
Society disagrees with them so that's their problem, isn't it?Who cares if society disagrees with them?

Is "society" your moral compass?


Similar to what drives you - belief. Differing objects of belief, but similar human processes.You know the basis of my belief - I am trying to determine the basis of your belief.


BTW, nice attempt at thread hijacking. ;)Um, when a moral relitivist makes a claim of immorality, questioning that assertion could hardly be considered thread hijacking.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 09:21 AM
Fair enough, I will take that as a concession and therefore focaus on Zakath.


"Because I say so"is the basis of everyones' morality. If you get it from a book, you are simply nameing a surrogate, that does not change the fact that you are the one making the decision.

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 09:21 AM
Who cares if society disagrees with them?It makes it considerably easier to get a conviction and sentencing in a court of law.


Is "society" your moral compass? You know the basis of my belief - I am trying to determine the basis of your belief.You obviously don't seem to be able to understand it, even though we've had this discussion, what, about a half dozen times?

:shrug:


Um, when a moral relitivist makes a claim of immorality, questioning that assertion could hardly be considered thread hijacking.In your opinion...

As I asked previously, do you have anything germane to the point of the OP - watching the behavior church leadership?

:think:

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 09:24 AM
"Because I say so"is the basis of everyones' morality. If you get it from a book, you are simply nameing a surrogate, that does not change the fact that you are the one making the decision.
I would agree with your point. The individual decides to accept one moral system over another by accepting the book. It still boils down to individual choice.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 09:25 AM
According to whom?
According to the person who thinks it's unnessary.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:27 AM
It makes it considerably easier to get a conviction an sentence in a court of law.Who cares?

Zakath, you are a moral relativist!

According to you determining what is moral is relative to who is performing the action.

Therefore, if you consider "unnecessarily injuring others" immoral on what basis can you determine that "unnecessarily injuring others" is immoral for someone else?

What makes you right and others wrong?


You obviously don't seem to be able to understand it, even though we've had this discussion, what, about a half dozen times?Oh I understand it allright.

Believe me I understand it. :rotfl:

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 09:28 AM
Typically this turns into a "The Sky is Blue--Discuss" argument while the filth and offenses of the church go overlooked.

Nice job deflecting the point all ye white-washed tombs...

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:29 AM
Typically this turns into a "The Sky is Blue--Discuss" argument while the filth and offenses of the church go overlooked.

Nice job deflecting the point all ye white-washed tombs...I can condemn the immorality of the church.

Can you?

And if so, based on what?

fool
August 31st, 2005, 09:30 AM
I would agree with your point. The individual decides to accept one moral system over another by accepting the book. It still boils down to individual choice.
Exactly, not only that but swallowing the bait puts them on the line that leads to the boat where preists are rapeing children.

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 09:30 AM
Who cares?

Zakath, you are a moral relativist!Well duh! :doh:

Now there's a world-shaking revelation!

:darwinsm:

Nice Jay-like dodging the theme of the thread... :rolleyes:

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:30 AM
According to the person who thinks it's unnessary.Are you a moral relativist?

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 09:32 AM
I can condemn the immorality of the church.

Based on what?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:32 AM
Well duh! :doh:

Now there's a world-shaking revelation!

:darwinsm:I think it is important to remind you of this fact when you start threads like this accusing others of moral wrongs.

On what basis do can you condemn the immorality of others?

What makes your version of morality more "right" than those that you accuse?

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 09:34 AM
I can condemn the immorality of the church.

Can you?

And if so, based on what?

Uh, yeah, Knight, I can. And I do. You have yet to, oddly enough, on this thread anyhow.

"First do no harm" seems to be a good place to start. Behavior that injures others does not benefit society as a whole which is why theft, rape, and murder have been outlawed for eons. Mankind does not need an instruction manual to figure out the order collapses when anything goes. Civilization by nature is the enemy of anarchy and humanity has always understood that.

What you people don't seem to understand is the survival mechanism of mankind: it's called self-preservation. I do unto others as they'd do unto me because it's EASIER that way and better that way. It's simplistic and childish to think the human race still needs the basics spelled out for them, especially when it's intolerant power-hungry philistines who are insisting on telling us the "right" way to live.

Thanks but no thanks.

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 09:34 AM
I think it is important to remind you of this fact when you start threads like this accusing others of moral wrongs.

On what basis do can you condemn the immorality of others?

What makes your version of morality more "right" than those that you accuse?We've already discussed these questions, multiple times... how about sticking to the thread topic?

Or is it your intention to divert interest away from the activities of church leaders under discussion?

:think:

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:35 AM
Based on what?Based on the existence of a righteous God.

There's mine, where's yours?

Here is the rub, one of us (that would be you) claims that morality only exists in the mind of each one of us. So you might say to yourself "I am not going to moleste little kids" but you have no right to tell others that child molestation is wrong because you have conceded that morality is relative to each of us.

I do not claim morality is relative.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 09:36 AM
I can condemn the immorality of the church.



based on what?

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 09:36 AM
So you make it up as you go, just as we do. Since you THINK a righteous God exists you think you are entitled.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:37 AM
We've already discussed these questions, multiple times... how about sticking to the thread topic?This IS the topic!

A moral relativist (that would be you) is making a claim that others are committing immorality.

That, my moral relativist friend (that would be you) is the relevant topic.

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 09:38 AM
Based on the existence of a righteous God.You mean your belief in the existence of such an entity...

So if your deity, for his own inscrutable reasons, told someone to molest a child, you'd be OK with that?

fool
August 31st, 2005, 09:38 AM
Are you a moral relativist?
what's a moral relativist?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:39 AM
So you make it up as you go, just as we do. Since you THINK a righteous God exists you think you are entitled.You can disagree that a righteous God exists, that is your prerogative.

And if you go through life without making claims of immorality you will remain consistent.

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 09:40 AM
This IS the topic!Nope. My thread, my topic.

The topic, is "the Church" spending its resources to pay for the crimes of its leadership, not how some atheist justifies his moral beliefs.

:rolleyes:

If you cannot see that, you're in the wrong thread. ;)

fool
August 31st, 2005, 09:42 AM
You mean your belief in the existence of such an entity...

So if your deity, for his own inscrutable reasons, told someone to molest a child, you'd be OK with that?
Or if he told you to sacrafice your child to him?
Like that Aberaham dude.

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 09:42 AM
You can disagree that a righteous God exists, that is your prerogative.

And if you go through life without making claims of immorality you will remain consistent.

Gee, thanks, Knight. Glad you gave me permission to think for myself.:rolleyes:

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:43 AM
Nope. My thread, my topic.

The topic, is "the Church" spending its resources to pay for the crimes of its leadership, not how some atheist justifies his moral beliefs.

:rolleyes:This may be your thread but its MY website. :rolleyes:

If you cannot see that, you're in the wrong website. ;)

So tell me....

On what basis do can you condemn the immorality of others?

What makes your version of morality more "right" than those that you accuse?

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 09:43 AM
Or if he told you to sacrafice your child to him?
Like that Aberaham dude.

Or when an unfortunate father followed through and murdered his own daughter. Charming, that Yahweh.

Zakath, I regret to comment that it appears this thread was KO'd by a mod who evidently woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Sorry. :bang:

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:44 AM
Or if he told you to sacrafice your child to him?
Like that Aberaham dude.Do you think that was absolutely wrong?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:46 AM
Or when an unfortunate father followed through and murdered his own daughter. Charming, that Yahweh.

Zakath, I regret to comment that it appears this thread was KO'd by a mod who evidently woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Sorry. :bang:LOL!!! :rotfl: Moral relativists in practice are FAR from relative.

Doesn't consistency in your own beliefs have any value to you?

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 09:48 AM
This may be your thread but its MY website. :rolleyes:Thank you for reminding us all of that. :rolleyes:


If you cannot see that, you're in the wrong website. ;)Twice.


So tell me....Nope. Not here. :nono:

fool
August 31st, 2005, 09:49 AM
Knight: what it boils down to is that Yaweh dose'nt enforce his laws, men who believe in him do.
So it comes from men, not Yaweh.
And I'm sure you're aware that I think men wrote your book, so you get your morality from men just the same as Zak.
At least Zak admits it. Whereas You hide behind a made up deity, and will do whatever he says.
What would you do in Abrahams' shoes?
I would have told Yaweh to get off my porch.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:52 AM
Nope. Not here. :nono:Why not? What are you so afraid of? Why not just admit you have no basis to condemn other's immorality?

You should be proud that you have no basis to condemn others immorality! Don't you boast that you are a moral relativist? Isn't that the point? What's the fun of being a moral relativist when you have to reject your own belief just to start a thread like this?

Zakath, admit what you are - come out of the closet!!!

:rotfl:

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 09:55 AM
Why not?Not the proper venue.


What are you so afraid of?Nothing; merely because I do not wish to discuss (yet again) what we've already hashed out numerous times before doesn't mean I'm fearful, merely weary.


Why not just admit you have no basis to condemn other's immorality?Because that's not the point of this discussion, which you seem to be incapable of grasping.

:doh:

[snipped rest of maunderings...]

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:56 AM
Knight: what it boils down to is that Yaweh dose'nt enforce his laws, men who believe in him do.
So it comes from men, not Yaweh.
And I'm sure you're aware that I think men wrote your book, so you get your morality from men just the same as Zak.
At least Zak admits it. Whereas You hide behind a made up deity, and will do whatever he says.
What would you do in Abrahams' shoes?
I would have told Yaweh to get off my porch.fool, your missing the point.

I do not claim to be a moral relativist.

It doesn't matter (at this point in the discussion) where my absolute morality comes from. I could claim I get my absolute morality from pink aligators hovering over New York City. Then later we could argue the validity of my claim.

But I did not start this thread, a moral relativist did.

Zakath believes that morality is in the eyes of the beholder yet he is making a claim that others should adhere to his standard of morality.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 09:58 AM
Nothing; merely because I do not wish to discuss (yet again) what we've already hashed out numerous times before doesn't mean I'm fearful, merely weary.I realize you have grown tired of getting you butt whooped but hey you are a slow learner.

If you stopped creating threads that cry out for others to adhere to your standard of morality maybe I would stop spanking you like a 4 year old at K-Mart.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 10:04 AM
[Jim Carrey voice] This house is clear [/Jim Carrey voice]

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 10:04 AM
I realize you have grown tired of getting you butt whooped but hey you are a slow learner. Why not just refer people to the Battle Royale we had on this subject and be done with it?

Don't you think you did a credible job there?


If you stopped creating threads that cry out for others to adhere to your standard of morality maybe I would stop spanking you like a 4 year old at K-Mart.Having to remind us that it's your board, and your right to hijack any thread you want, appears as little more than bullying posters into arguing your favorite topics... :rolleyes:

I hope you enjoyed the reparte.

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 10:15 AM
Knight seems to be implying only Christians are in a position to criticize the church's behavior.

When Christians do not--as in, say, the recent pedophile papist scandal--where does that leave us? When Christians do not even police themselves?

Or are they simply above criticism?

Poly
August 31st, 2005, 10:19 AM
Knight seems to be implying only Christians are in a position to criticize the church's behavior.

When Christians do not--as in, say, the recent pedophile papist scandal--where does that leave us? When Christians do not even police themselves?

Or are they simply above criticism?

Nope, Granite you missed it. It must be contagious cause fool missed it too.


fool, your missing the point.

I do not claim to be a moral relativist.

It doesn't matter (at this point in the discussion) where my absolute morality comes from. I could claim I get my absolute morality from pink aligators hovering over New York City. Then later we could argue the validity of my claim.

But I did not start this thread, a moral relativist did.

Zakath believes that morality is in the eyes of the beholder yet he is making a claim that others should adhere to his standard of morality.

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 10:21 AM
I don't see how Knight's post answers my questions. Could ya clarify?

Poly
August 31st, 2005, 10:25 AM
I don't see how Knight's post answers my questions. Could ya clarify?

You really think that Knight's whole point on this thread is that only Christians should be able to criticize the behavior of the church? I don't even know how you came up with that by what he's said.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 10:25 AM
fool, your missing the point.
And you didn't answer my question.
If Yaweh tells you to sacrafice your child to him will you do it?


I do not claim to be a moral relativist.

That dosen't mean you aren't one


It doesn't matter (at this point in the discussion) where my absolute morality comes from. I could claim I get my absolute morality from pink aligators hovering over New York City. Then later we could argue the validity of my claim.

So your "absolute morality" is relative to what your deity tells you?


But I did not start this thread, a moral relativist did.

dosen't matter who started it, it's on now.


Zakath believes that morality is in the eyes of the beholder yet he is making a claim that others should adhere to his standard of morality.
No, I think that Zakath hopes other people will adhere to his standard. Or, any standard that says molesting kids is bad. I think that you hope the same thing. But what it boils down to is that if You or Zakath witness such acts you will put a stop to it. Yaweh or the pink alligators will not be involved. If you are incapeable of stopping a child molester without the percieved approval of your deity then by all means you should hang on to that belief. Until he tells you to sacrafice your kid. Then your back in the relitivest boat. Or at least you should be.

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 10:27 AM
Nope, Granite you missed it. It must be contagious cause fool missed it too.Or perhaps the point is just too subtle for mere mortals to comprehend. :rolleyes:

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 10:28 AM
You really think that Knight's whole point on this thread is that only Christians should be able to criticize the behavior of the church? I don't even know how you came up with that by what he's said.

No. I never said that was his whole point. But it seems to be something he was implying.

Lemme ask again just to see if he answers:

Are Christians the only people who can criticize the behavior of the church and other Christians?

What happens when Christians do not police their own behavior?

Is something like the pedophile scandal in the Catholic Church something that no one but other Christians is qualified to talk about?

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 10:28 AM
You really think that Knight's whole point on this thread is that only Christians should be able to criticize the behavior of the church? I don't even know how you came up with that by what he's said.
It's not a big jump from Knight's apparent position of "only those with moral values based on my deity's absolute law have a right to make moral decisions" to that position... is it?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 10:29 AM
Knight seems to be implying only Christians are in a position to criticize the church's behavior.I am arguing that a moral relativist is not in a position to condemn the immorality of others. Unless you wish to redefine what a moral relativist is how on earth could you disagree?

Poly
August 31st, 2005, 10:29 AM
Or perhaps the point is just too subtle for mere mortals to comprehend. :rolleyes:

Don't you realize that you leave yourself wide open for exposure every time you decide to bring up an issue criticizing the acts of another? How can any moral relativist even have the audacity to bring up faults in anybody and still hold true to their belief?

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 10:32 AM
Don't you realize that you leave yourself wide open for exposure every time you decide to bring up an issue criticizing the acts of another?Unlike your position, mine does not require the existence of an absolute authority to engage in discussion.

;)

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 10:32 AM
So your "absolute morality" is relative to what your deity tells you?Even if true, that wouldn't fall into the definition of "relative".

Please try to stay on pace. :up:

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 10:32 AM
I am arguing that a moral relativist is not in a position to condemn the immorality of others. Unless you wish to redefine what a moral relativist is how on earth could you disagree?

I disagree because people know injustice when they see it. Even an apostate like me, following what your book says, supposedly has the law written on his heart.

Paul said: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" (Romans 2:14-15).

It is, according to your apostle, an instinct to uphold the law even if one is a heretic.

Or do you disagree?

fool
August 31st, 2005, 10:35 AM
Even if true, that wouldn't fall into the definition of "relative".

Please try to stay on pace. :up:
Absolutly relative?
Relativly absolute?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 10:36 AM
Unlike your position, mine does not require the existence of an absolute authority to engage in discussion.

;)Zakath we didn't force you to present yourself as a moral relativist.

You did that on your own freewill.

The way I see it you have two ways to remain consistent:

1. Admit that you do not believe that what the abusive priests did was immoral (since morality is relative to oneself).

Or....

2. Admit that you do not believe in moral relativism.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 10:38 AM
I disagree because people know injustice when they see it. Even an apostate like me, following what your book says, supposedly has the law written on his heart.

Paul said: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" (Romans 2:14-15).

It is, according to your apostle, an instinct to uphold the law even if one is a heretic.

Or do you disagree?Praise the Lord!

It's funny how truth can just slip out in such incredible ways. Nice job Granite! :up:

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 10:42 AM
Praise the Lord!

It's funny how truth can just slip out in such incredible ways. Nice job Granite! :up:

Excellent! Then you'd agree if you people are right I do not need a guidebook or your laws to keep my behavior in check.

That said, assuming you're on track, Zakath is more than qualified to make moral judgments because his heart has been written on by the almighty.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 10:44 AM
Excellent! Then you'd agree if you people are right I do not need a guidebook or your laws to keep my behavior in check.The law book can only condemn what is is wrong. The law can't save you.


That said, assuming you're on track, Zakath is more than qualified to make moral judgments because his heart has been written on by the almighty.Convince Zakath of that and were all good! :)

Poly
August 31st, 2005, 10:45 AM
That said, assuming you're on track, Zakath is more than qualified to make moral judgments because his heart has been written on by the almighty.

You do realize that Zakath doesn't believe that the law was written in his heart by God, right?

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 10:46 AM
Zakath we didn't force you to present yourself as a moral relativist.

You did that on your own freewill.I prefer to honestly represent my position...


The way I see it you have two ways to remain consistent:

1. Admit that you do not believe that what the abusive priests did was immoral (since morality is relative to oneself).

Or....

2. Admit that you do not believe in moral relativism.
I have opinions on the subjects of handling non-profit organizations' finances and proper behavior by the people in charge of those organizations and I wanted to discuss them here.

From where I sit, those opinions do not require the existence of, or adherence to, some set of moral absolutes. On the other hand, it appears that the limitations of your worldview keep you from accepting the idea that people may indulge in different cognitive processes than your own. As such, you feel the need to reject the validity of any belief other than your own, using ridicule when logic fails.

It seems to severely limit the quality of interactions you have on discussion forums.

It's your worldview, and your problem, not mine.

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 10:47 AM
The law book can only condemn what is is wrong. The law can't save you.

Convince Zakath of that and were all good! :)

I wasn't asking about your idea of salvation. I was talking about the knowledge of right and wrong--which you guys claim even the unsaved have by instinct.

If Paul is correct and if our behavior is instinctively bent towards keeping the law, why are you so obsessed with the judgment calls made by the unwashed?

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 10:48 AM
You do realize that Zakath doesn't believe that the law was written in his heart by God, right?
Why would mere human belief change a metaphysical fact?

Does my disbelief affect the existence of any deity? :nono:

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 10:49 AM
The law book can only condemn what is is wrong. The law can't save you.We're not discussing soteriology here... we're trying to discuss the conduct of those in charge of churches and their handling of the people and monies entrusted to their charge...

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 10:51 AM
From where I sit, those opinions do not require the existence of, or adherence to, some set of moral absolutes. On the other hand, it appears that the limitations of your worldview keep you from accepting the idea that people may indulge in different cognitive processes than your own. As such, you feel the need to reject the validity of any belief other than your own, using ridicule when logic fails.

It seems to severely limit the quality of interactions you have on discussion forums.

It's your worldview, and your problem, not mine.Zakath, if morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 10:52 AM
We're not discussing soteriology here... we're trying to discuss the conduct of those in charge of churches and their handling of the people and monies entrusted to their charge...Tell Granite, I was merely answering his question. :)

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 10:54 AM
If Paul is correct and if our behavior is instinctively bent towards keeping the law, why are you so obsessed with the judgment calls made by the unwashed?Uh... just a point of fact here... what is right and wrong is written on our heart HOWEVER, we are not instinctively bent towards keeping the law.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 10:55 AM
Zakath, if morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 10:58 AM
Uh... just a point of fact here... what is right and wrong is written on our heart HOWEVER, we are not instinctively bent towards keeping the law.

The apostle seems to say so. In any event I do not think you are interested in a serious discussion here. Zakath raised a point of order and you instinctively sidestepped the issue he brought up.

One way or another, will you expend any energy whatsoever criticizing the immoral actions Zakath described or aren't you done yet beating this horse to death?

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 10:59 AM
... or offerings for that matter...

Are they going to pay for the illegal and immoral activities of your church leaders?

From the Boston.com News (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/08/29/judge_dioceses_assets_to_pay_sex_abuse_victims/), the Boston Globe web site



That last line should give some folks pause... in a big legal settlement, all church assets may be on the table for dissolution or sale when the leadership screws up.

It pays parishoners, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, to watch their leadership more carefully. :think:

If this continues to snowball do you think the Vatican will crack down if for no other reason than self-preservation?

I mean, they have massive land holdings and they certainly don't want those swallowed up in court.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 11:06 AM
The apostle seems to say so. In any event I do not think you are interested in a serious discussion here. Zakath raised a point of order and you instinctively sidestepped the issue he brought up.

One way or another, will you expend any energy whatsoever criticizing the immoral actions Zakath described or aren't you done yet beating this horse to death?If a person who is staunchly against gambling starts a thread that states....

"I would like to bet a thousand dollars that gambling is bad."

What do you suppose would be discussed in such a thread?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 11:12 AM
Zakath, if morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 11:14 AM
If a person who is staunchly against gambling starts a thread that states....

"I would like to bet a thousand dollars that gambling is bad."

What do you suppose would be discussed in such a thread?

I guess the answer's no.

Too bad, so sad. Another thread bites the dust. Thanks.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 11:15 AM
Granite, if morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 11:26 AM
I would say morality isn't. Causing harm is self-evident.

We should probably start another thread.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 11:30 AM
I would say morality isn't. Causing harm is self-evident. So are you saying causing harm is absolutely immoral?


We should probably start another thread.FAGITABOUTIT - I own this joint remember? :D

This thread will be just fine.

So . . . maybe you could specifically answer my question (which is on topic by the way).

Granite, if morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

Turbo
August 31st, 2005, 11:30 AM
I would say morality isn't. Causing harm is self-evident.

Then you should be on our side of this debate, and not Zakath's, since Zakath is a self-proclaimed moral relativist.

But despite his claimed beliefs, he cannot resist making moral judgments against others, which is evidence of the truth of Paul's claim (which you appropriately quoted).

Caledvwlch
August 31st, 2005, 11:34 AM
At any rate, if I were a tithing man, and my tithes were going to pay sex abuse settlements, I'd likely be at least slightly miffed.

I also don't believe morality is a real thing. It's more of a series of conditioned responses brought on by education, upbringing and sociological environment, but that's just my 2 cents.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 11:39 AM
At any rate, if I were a tithing man, and my tithes were going to pay sex abuse settlements, I'd likely be at least slightly miffed.And since you are not a tithing man you are not miffed. (makes sense to me)


I also don't believe morality is a real thing. It's more of a series of conditioned responses brought on by education, upbringing and sociological environment, but that's just my 2 cents.Therefore you do not condemn the actions of the abusive priests, correct?

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 11:39 AM
So are you saying causing harm is absolutely immoral?

FAGITABOUTIT - I own this joint remember? :D

This thread will be just fine.

So . . . maybe you could specifically answer my question (which is on topic by the way).

Granite, if morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

Yes, you have mentioned more than once that this is your website.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 11:41 AM
Granite, IF morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

Notice the "if" in the question. Please answer OK?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 11:42 AM
Zakath . . .

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 11:42 AM
Then you should be on our side of this debate, and not Zakath's, since Zakath is a self-proclaimed moral relativist.

But despite his claimed beliefs, he cannot resist making moral judgments against others, which is evidence of the truth of Paul's claim (which you appropriately quoted).

I'm my own. Contrary to popular opinion I am not the Zak Man's sidekick, thank you kindly.

I am stunned and amazed that you guys are so self-absorbed and egotistical that not a man jack of you has commented on the opening post. Good frickin' grief. :doh:

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 11:44 AM
I am stunned and amazed that you guys are so self-absorbed and egotistical that not a man jack of you has commented on the opening post. Good frickin' grief. :doh:We are commenting on the opening post. In fact, that's all we have done!

Granite, IF morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?

Notice the "if" in the question. Please answer OK?

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 11:44 AM
Zakath, if morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?
Yes, it is. But recall we are not discussing parishoners here. These clergy are people in positions of public trust so it is also in violation of one or more of the oaths they voluntarily swore, before their deity and church hierarchy, to care for those in their charge.

If they come to a point where their moral sense (i.e conscience) comes into conflict with that mutually agreed upon standard of behavior (including both Canon law and Civil law), then they have two options:

a) violate the moral standard to which they voluntarily subscribed and accept the social and psychological consequences of oathbreaking

or

b) resign from their position to follow their conscience and take the consequences.

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 11:46 AM
Zakath . . .
Some of us do work for a living... ;)

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 11:49 AM
If this continues to snowball do you think the Vatican will crack down if for no other reason than self-preservation?Yes. From my experience, particularly with that group, what is deemed preservation of the church is deemed to be a higher divine imperative than the safety of any particular individual.


I mean, they have massive land holdings and they certainly don't want those swallowed up in court.There are probably close to a billion Catholics on the planet. I doubt it would come to that...

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 11:50 AM
Yes, it is.Thank you.

Finally a bit of consistency from Zakath!

So now that you admit what the priests did was not immoral what gives you the right to condemn their behavior?

Save us all some time... your answer is "nothing".

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 12:00 PM
...So now that you admit what the priests did was not immoral what gives you the right to condemn their behavior?By what twisted logical process could you come up with the idea that oathbreaking is not immoral???

:doh:

Oaths form much of the basis for all human social interaction. How can breaking one's oath not be immoral?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 12:03 PM
By what twisted logical process could you come up with the idea that oathbreaking is not immoral???

:doh::ha: By your twisted logic!

You admitted that what the priests did was moral relative to them therefore you cannot claim that their actions were immoral.

Feel free to explain to all of us what makes oath-breaking immoral. :)

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 12:05 PM
Oaths form much of the basis for all human social interaction. How can breaking one's oath not be immoral?Which action that the priests engaged in was more immoral....?

Sexually abusing little children.

Or...

Breaking an oath.

Caledvwlch
August 31st, 2005, 12:10 PM
:ha: By your twisted logic!

You admitted that what the priests did was moral relative to them therefore you cannot claim that their actions were immoral.

Feel free to explain to all of us what makes oath-breaking immoral. :)
Knight, if I may be so bold,

You've masterfully weilded the same "no moral absolutes" argument my Dad taught me when I was but a wee lad. And as far as I'm concerned there are no moral absolutes any more than there is one absolute human language or one absolute human custom. But a lack of absolute right and wrong does not mean that I must place myself in a world devoid of consequences. I'm not saying thsat consequences are absolute, of course, simply that they are fairly universal to human culture.

Also, what the priests did couldn't have been moral to them. They were Catholic priests for God's sake. They have rules. Maybe some aboriginal orphan raised by monkeys might not know that it's not nice to molest little boys, but a Catholic priest has some moral groundwork to go by. But it's still relative.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 12:15 PM
Zakath, if morality is truly relative isn't the abusive priests actions moral relative to them?
You forgot the victim, and the victims gaurdians.
Your relativity stops at the end of my nose.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 12:25 PM
Now then Knight, it's time for you to answer my question.
Is it okay to sacrafice your child to Yaweh when he tells you to.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 12:26 PM
You forgot the victim, and the victims gaurdians.
Your relativity stops at the end of my nose.That is not a description of relativity.

If there is an absolute standard (the end of my nose) then you reject moral relativism.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 12:29 PM
Knight, if I may be so bold,

You've masterfully weilded the same "no moral absolutes" argument my Dad taught me when I was but a wee lad. And as far as I'm concerned there are no moral absolutes any more than there is one absolute human language or one absolute human custom. But a lack of absolute right and wrong does not mean that I must place myself in a world devoid of consequences. I'm not saying thsat consequences are absolute, of course, simply that they are fairly universal to human culture.So what?


Also, what the priests did couldn't have been moral to them. They were Catholic priests for God's sake. They have rules. Maybe some aboriginal orphan raised by monkeys might not know that it's not nice to molest little boys, but a Catholic priest has some moral groundwork to go by. But it's still relative.The priests didn't start this thread a moral relativist did.

Had the priests started this thread you might have a point.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 12:29 PM
That is not a description of relativity.

If there is an absolute standard (the end of my nose) then you reject moral relativism.
Looks like I do.
Now then, by what right do I tell the world that they don't get to do whatever they want to me?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 12:33 PM
Now then Knight, it's time for you to answer my question.
Is it okay to sacrafice your child to Yaweh when he tells you to.God provided a ram in a thicket as a substitution for Isaac this was an illustration that God would provide a lamb in a crown of thorns as a sacrifice to pay for our sin.

allsmiles
August 31st, 2005, 12:34 PM
absolutes to me are a moral cunundrum invented by christians with an equally ficticious solution, all the while you folks are expecting everyone to thank you.

some things shouldn't be done by decent, civilized people. some people are not decent nor civilized, their personal moral standards are in the gutter while good folks like ourselves have higher, personal moral standards. an aborigine may molest little children and have no idea that we think it is morally horrific, obviously his standards are lower than ours and had he been brought up in our society, he would never have had the excuse that he didn't know better. and likewise, had i been raised on a diet of bugs, fruit and little children the idea of right and wrong would probably be mind blowing.

this is a fictional dilemma. you don't hurt people (molest, steal from, murder, rape, etc.) because it is not practical to hurt people, because you do not want to be hurt in return, because you wouldn't wish it upon yourself or the people you love. it's just as much an issue of practicality as it is morality.

i have my personal moral standards squared away, i do not hurt and i expect the same in return. i'm not condemning or judging anyone else's moral code, even if their code includes rape as being :thumb:. what i am doing is promising a world of hurt upon anyone who violates the tranquility and comfort of my life. i would never seek to impose a code of morality upon a free thinking individual.

whether you get your morals from the bible or from yourself, we all share fundamental moral values: do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, etc. you don't need a divine mandate or convoluted ideas of moral relativism to share common sense ideals and actions that keep ourselves honest and decent.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 12:34 PM
Looks like I do.Excellent! You should now see why Zakath is in error for starting such a thread.


Now then, by what right do I tell the world that they don't get to do whatever they want to me?You tell me.

On Fire
August 31st, 2005, 12:36 PM
You're a Humanist?
Hey! Clowns are human, too.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 12:36 PM
whether you get your morals from the bible or from yourself, we all share fundamental moral values: do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, etc. you don't need a divine mandate or convoluted ideas of moral relativism to share common sense ideals and actions that keep ourselves honest and decent members of society.What makes you "right" and the rapist "wrong"?

Caledvwlch
August 31st, 2005, 12:36 PM
So what?

The priests didn't start this thread a moral relativist did.

Had the priests started this thread you might have a point.
Ok fair enough.

I'm not sure, on the other hand, if the morality of the priests' actions is really the point here, so much as whether or not the parishioners should have to pay the settlement bills. Although I suppose it would be similar to what happens if someone sues the federal government...

On Fire
August 31st, 2005, 12:37 PM
absolutes to me are a moral cunundrum invented by christians
I'd be rolling on the floor laughing my arse off if I didn't have such a terrible headache.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 12:38 PM
God provided a ram in a thicket as a substitution for Isaac this was an illustration that God would provide a lamb in a crown of thorns as a sacrifice to pay for our sin.
Irrelevant, the point is Yaweh said kill your child and Abe said OK.
My point is that I wouldn't have agreed because I have morals.
What would you have done?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 12:38 PM
i would never seek to impose a code of morality upon a free thinking individual.I think you just did.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 12:42 PM
I'm not sure, on the other hand, if the morality of the priests' actions is really the point here, so much as whether or not the parishioners should have to pay the settlement bills. Although I suppose it would be similar to what happens if someone sues the federal government...If what the priests did was not objectively immoral it should make no difference to the parishioners in regard to tithing.

Agree?

In other words . . .
If the priests were being accused of being left handed (or anything morally neutral) there would be no issue in regard to tithing.

allsmiles
August 31st, 2005, 12:45 PM
What makes you "right" and the rapist "wrong"?

i don't speak for rapists, i speak for myself.

i make me right.


I think you just did.

how so? i tell people what i think, how i see the world and how i live my life but i've never tried to get anyone to play by rules, i don't tell people there's an invisible yard stick out there that they must measure themselves against.

Caledvwlch
August 31st, 2005, 12:46 PM
If what the priests did was not objectively immoral it should make no difference to the parishioners in regard to tithing.

Agree?

In other words . . .
If the priests were being accused of being left handed (or anything morally neutral) there would be no issue in regard to tithing.
Nevertheless, real money has been and will be paid out in large quantities and it is coming out of Joe Catholic's pocket. Is that how it's supposed to work?

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 12:48 PM
Irrelevant, the point is Yaweh said kill your child and Abe said OK.
My point is that I wouldn't have agreed because I have morals.
What would you have done?

Ask Jephthah.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 12:49 PM
Excellent! You should now see why Zakath is in error for starting such a thread.[
Wrong, even a relitivist has standards, they just state that their contextual, so lets look at the context, molestation is illegal in the U.S., those preists took an oath not to have sex of any kind, the church covered up the cases, which shows that even to them it was wrong, and transfered those priests to other parishs without disclosing their history.
Hence, they knew what they did was wrong and we can tell that by their own actions.
So what they did was wrong in this context.


You tell me.
By the same right that any organism defends itself, personal sovernty.

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 12:50 PM
Nevertheless, real money has been and will be paid out in large quantities and it is coming out of Joe Catholic's pocket. Is that how it's supposed to work?

Let's see...

John and Mary Smith attended Our Lady of the Broken Heart for thirty-odd years, get married there, baptize their children there. One side is abused by a priest and has his life destroyed. Priest dies before serving jail time. Meantime John and Mary discover the tithes to Our Lady are going towards the legal expenses of St Michael's across town--to pay families who endured similar tragedies.

What is wrong with this picture?

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 12:50 PM
Which action that the priests engaged in was more immoral....?

Sexually abusing little children.

Or...

Breaking an oath.
From my point of view, both actions were immoral.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 12:50 PM
Nevertheless, real money has been and will be paid out in large quantities and it is coming out of Joe Catholic's pocket. Is that how it's supposed to work?Large quantities of money are also being paid out to build new Catholic churches.

Is that how its supposed to work?

Isn't the real issue here the immorality or lack-thereof of the priests sexual abuse?

In other words...
If what the priests did was moral then tithes SHOULD be used to pay for their actions.

However, if what the priests did was objectively immoral then parishioners should question the use of their tithes.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 12:52 PM
From my point of view, both actions were immoral.Are they on the same par?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 12:54 PM
Wrong, even a relitivist has standardsAnd the standard is relative. :duh:

Hello??

Anyone in there????

fool
August 31st, 2005, 12:56 PM
If what the priests did was not objectively immoral it should make no difference to the parishioners in regard to tithing.

Agree?

In other words . . .
If the priests were being accused of being left handed (or anything morally neutral) there would be no issue in regard to tithing.
The point about Titheing is that not only did preists molest but the RCC covered it up, moved preists to different places without warning people about them, moved them around more when it happened again, and the church knew this, it was their policy, hence it's a poison tree from the priest all the way up to the pope, and if your titheing to that organization you are supporting molestation period.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 12:58 PM
I will comment in RED.
The point about Titheing is that not only did preists molest but the RCC covered it up, SO WHAT? moved preists to different places without warning people about them, SO WHAT? moved them around more when it happened again, SO WHAT? and the church knew this, SO WHAT? it was their policy, SO WHAT? hence it's a poison tree from the priest all the way up to the pope, SO WHAT? and if your titheing to that organization you are supporting molestation period.SO WHAT?

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 01:00 PM
In other words...
If what the priests did was moral then tithes SHOULD be used to pay for their actions.Morality is in the eye of the beholder.

These men made oaths/vows to their superiors, their communities, and their deity to act in a certain way. They broke those vows when they chose to act differently. What the priests did was immoral - as decided by their Church (Canon law), their society (criminal & civil law), and their victims (social contract).

You seem to be placing yourself in the position of not supporting the use of diocesean funds to pay for settlements to the abused parishoners.

Is that correct?

Do you support the moving of assets and declaring bankruptcy by the church hierarchy to preserve the wealth of the church by preventing those funds from being included in the legal settlements to the victims?

fool
August 31st, 2005, 01:02 PM
I will comment in RED.
So if you support that Church you're an accessory to molestation, that's so what.

Poly
August 31st, 2005, 01:04 PM
and if your titheing to that organization you are supporting molestation period.
If you are a moral relativist, you CANNOT, IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM say that one is wrong in giving to support molestation nor can they say molestation is wrong. Even if one is only going by his standards who's to say that his standard should be the standard for somebody else?

Your standard is that molestation is wrong. Big deal!
The molesters standard is that molestation is hunky dorey.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:05 PM
So if you support that Church you're an accessory to molestation, that's so what.It's only a "So What?" coming from the moral relativist perspective.

Zakath is a moral relativist.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:11 PM
Morality is in the eye of the beholder. This statement makes the rest of your post silly! :rotfl:


These men made oaths/vows to their superiors, eye's of the beholder their communities, eye's of the beholder and their deity eye's of the beholder to act in a certain way eye's of the beholder. They broke those vows eye's of the beholder when they chose to act differently eye's of the beholder. What the priests did was immoraleye's of the beholder - as decided by their Church (Canon law), their society (criminal & civil law), and their victims (social contract). YES, the church could and should condemn these priests but YOU cannot! Which of course is the point. :cool:


You seem to be placing yourself in the position of not supporting the use of diocesean funds to pay for settlements to the abused parishoners.

Is that correct?Are you really this dumb? :zakath:


Do you support the moving of assets and declaring bankruptcy by the church hierarchy to preserve the wealth of the church by preventing those funds from being included in the legal settlements to the victims?I do not support the priests (they should be executed) nor the church for supporting them (they are now accessories).

The point is, you (as a moral relativist) have no right to join me in condemning these perverts.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 01:12 PM
If you are a moral relativist, you CANNOT, IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM say that one is wrong in giving to support molestation nor can they say molestation is wrong. Even if one is only going by his standards who's to say that his standard should be the standard for somebody else?

Your standard is that molestation is wrong. Big deal!
The molesters standard is that molestation is hunky dorey.
And once again you ignore the fact that other people are involved, namely the victim which brings the victims standard into play, and if the victim is a minor then the parents standard into play.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:13 PM
And once again you ignore the fact that other people are involved, namely the victim which brings the victims standard into play, and if the victim is a minor then the parents standard into play.And if the victims started this thread I would join them in their disgust.

The victims DIDN'T start this thread, Zakath started this thread and he is a moral relativist.

Poly
August 31st, 2005, 01:15 PM
And once again you ignore the fact that other people are involved, namely the victim which brings the victims standard into play, and if the victim is a minor then the parents standard into play.

But even the victim's standard is relative. You're still having to abide by somebody else's standard in not making him a victim. What makes his standard more right than somebody else's?

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 01:19 PM
So what? If you are a moral relativist, you CANNOT, IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM say that one is wrong in giving to support molestation nor can they say molestation is wrong. Even if one is only going by his standards who's to say that his standard should be the standard for somebody else? The community of individuals we call society says what the standard is. It adopts some variation of consensus of individual standards to enable itself to function.




Your standard is that molestation is wrong. Big deal!
The molesters standard is that molestation is hunky dorey.I submit your view is incomplete, Poly. In addition to you and me, society says that molestation is wrong.

:think:

Let's look at an example very near and dear to the hearts of some religionists here on TOL. They believe it is morally good to execute people who practice certain froms of sexual activity.

Society, at present, does not believe so.

Those religionists, mentioned in the example, refrain from engaging in what they consider to be the morally correct behavior, in line with the will of their deity, because society will punish them for carrying out such actions.

Why? Because society deems such killing as morally wrong.

Even though some standard external to society (OT teaching) exists, society's rules prevail, not some deity's, and the deity's followers live in accordance with the rule of law in society, even though it offends their deity and allegedly violates his law.

Very few religionists have the will to oppose the society in which they choose to live. And if you people don't consider it important enough to live by and, if necessary die for, why should anyone else?

When push comes to shove, all the talk of absolutes is merely talk.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:21 PM
When push comes to shove, all the talk of absolutes is merely talk.In this thread push did come to shove and you fell off the cliff on page one.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:22 PM
The community of individuals we call society says what the standard is. It adopts some variation of consensus of individual standards to enable itself to function.Hitler would be proud.

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 01:22 PM
In this thread push did come to shove and you fell off the cliff on page one.
:blabla:

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 01:24 PM
Hitler would be proud.
Wow, it took you over 100 posts to drag out the Nazi card...

... you're slipping. ;)

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 01:24 PM
Hitler would be proud.

Yet another proof that when talked into a corner the Nazi remarks jump out... :devil:

Seriously, segregation, wife beating, lynching, crushing and hanging your enemies, and burning books is all stuff good Christian communities have agreed on, too, so let's not pretend the evil atheists are the only ones guilty here.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:25 PM
Wow, it took you over 100 posts to drag out the Nazi card...

... you're slipping. ;)I was giving you a fighting chance.

Poly
August 31st, 2005, 01:28 PM
The community of individuals we call society says what the standard is. It adopts some variation of consensus of individual standards to enable itself to function.



I submit your view is incomplete, Poly. In addition to you and me, society says that molestation is wrong.



Well, woo frickity hooo!

You've only shown that sometimes there are groups of people who share the same opinions. This doesn't show how you, a moral relativist, can make the claim that these priests are morally wrong and that the people who support what they do are as well. All you can do is suggest that it is your opinion as well as others who happen to agree with you that what they did was bad but you can't tell them why.

Surely you're not arrogant enough to think that it's your opinion that should convince others that molestation is wrong.

allsmiles
August 31st, 2005, 01:28 PM
hey, Zak's saying that might makes right, and it does. the general consensus is that rape and murder and molestation are wrong, so whether you believe these ideals came from some invisible measuring stick or from a consensus of moral disgust at atrocities, the social standard is there. what i'm interested in is evidence beyond the bible that absolute morals exist.

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 01:28 PM
I was giving you a fighting chance.
Naw, face facts. The reflexes are slipping, you're just getting old... :chuckle:

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:28 PM
Yet another proof that when talked into a corner the Nazi remarks jump out... :devil:Talked into a corner? :rotfl:


Seriously, segregation, wife beating, lynching, crushing and hanging your enemies, and burning books is all stuff good Christian communities have agreed on, too, so let's not pretend the evil atheists are the only ones guilty here.Oh I agree!

Tell me... do you condemn absolutely the wicked actions of wicked church leaders?

allsmiles
August 31st, 2005, 01:30 PM
oh yeah, and how can you say that we "can't" condemn anyone?

we can and we are, and we don't need an absolute standard to do it. i don't care if it doesn't make sense to you, if you loaded a tanker with all of the crap that doesn't make sense to a christian it would sink before it left the docks.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:32 PM
hey, Zak's saying that might makes right, and it does. the general consensus is that rape and murder and molestation are wrong, so whether you believe these ideals came from some invisible measuring stick or from a consensus of moral disgust at atrocities, the social standard is there. what i'm interested in is evidence beyond the bible that absolute morals exist.Forget about evidence for a minute.

Think about this....

I believe in absolute morality, therefore had I started a thread condemning wicked behavior it couldn't be considered inconsistent.

Zakath DOES NOT BELIEVE actual immorality exists! Therefore when he starts these threads it only makes sense that he gets waxed like this.

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 01:32 PM
One would also think that considering rape and murder have NEVER been considered legal our forebears might have figured this out long before they were handed some slabs with the law on them.

"Common law" is an old and instinctual concept, I would think.

Poly
August 31st, 2005, 01:32 PM
oh yeah, and how can you say that we "can't" condemn anyone?

we can and we are, and we don't need an absolute standard to do it. i don't care if it doesn't make sense to you, if you loaded a tanker with all of the crap that doesn't make sense to a christian it would sink before it left the docks.

So basically when the molester who thinks what he's doing is right, asks you why it's wrong, you're just going to tell him, "because I say so". Pretty arrogant don't you think? Yeah, I bet that'll convince him.

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 01:33 PM
Well, woo frickity hooo!

You've only shown that sometimes there are groups of people who share the same opinions. This doesn't show how you, a moral relativist, can make the claim that these priests are morally wrong and that the people who support what they do are as well. All you can do is suggest that it is your opinion as well as others who happen to agree with you that what they did was bad but you can't tell them why.When you're looking at the hangman's noose as punishment for your crime against society and it's members, "why" isn't nearly so important.

The activity of the clergy and their hierarchy is wrong from my perspective because it harms others unecessarily. For me, that's all the reason I need to hold my opinion.

If you need to appeal to a great cosmic cop to justify holding your opinion... hey, it's a free country.


Surely you're not arrogant enough to think that it's your opinion that should convince others that molestation is wrong.Arrogant? No. That's why it's a discussion forum. Some of us come here to discuss things, not merely browbeat people who disagree with us... :rolleyes:


Interesting that you completely ignored the rest of the post... :think:

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:33 PM
oh yeah, and how can you say that we "can't" condemn anyone?

we can and we are, and we don't need an absolute standard to do it. i don't care if it doesn't make sense to you, if you loaded a tanker with all of the crap that doesn't make sense to a christian it would sink before it left the docks.Does your belief system mean anything to you?

Shouldn't you be proud of your moral relativism?

Why are you arguing against it?

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 01:33 PM
Talked into a corner? :rotfl:

Oh I agree!

Tell me... do you condemn absolutely the wicked actions of wicked church leaders?

Yup, that's right. You've been riding this one-trick pony all day.

The actions of church leaders? Knight, who do you think you're talking to? I condemn whatever you guys consider good works, too, let alone the wicked ones...:chuckle:

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 01:34 PM
Forget about evidence for a minute.Ah yes, the ultimate refuge of the religionist...

I am the great and powerful moral absolutist, pay no attention to that evidence behind the curtain... :chuckle:

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:36 PM
"Common law" is an old and instinctual concept, I would think.History would prove you wrong. :)

But moreover, if you are REALLY a moral relativist you should argue against such "common law" as that would defeat the relative position of the "law".

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:37 PM
Ah yes, the ultimate refuge of the religionist...

I am the great and powerful moral absolutist, pay no attention to that evidence behind the curtain... :chuckle:Are you a moral relativist or not?

Why do you keep arguing against it?

Why not embrace it and promote it?

Poly
August 31st, 2005, 01:37 PM
When you're looking at the hangman's noose as punishment for your crime against society and it's members, "why" isn't nearly so important.


How can you justify punishing somebody when it might be possible that they haven't done anything deserving of being punished?

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 01:37 PM
History would prove you wrong. :)

But moreover, if you are REALLY a moral relativist you should argue against such "common law" as that would defeat the relative position of the "law".

How so? If sexual assault and homicide have ever been legalized lemme know...

Culture and civilization has always recognized certain actions are beyond the pale and illegalized them. Even the most decadent of societies punished certain crimes. A religion's law word isn't necessary to abolish murder or illegalize rape.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:37 PM
The actions of church leaders? Knight, who do you think you're talking to? I condemn whatever you guys consider good works, too, let alone the wicked ones...:chuckle:Are you a moral relativist?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:40 PM
How so? If sexual assault and homicide have ever been legalized lemme know...

Culture and civilization has always recognized certain actions are beyond the pale and illegalized them. Even the most decadent of societies punished certain crimes. A religion's law word isn't necessary to abolish murder or illegalize rape.It was legal in Nazi Germany to murder Jews.

Was the Nazi's laws that legalized murder wrong? And if so on what basis?

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 01:40 PM
How can you justify punishing somebody when it might be possible that they haven't done anything deserving of being punished?I justify it because of social contract. You cannot do so, but I do.

Even with "two or more witnesses" it's possible that a person might not be guilty of some act or other...

You're not insinuating that "religionist justice" never errs, are you?

:think: (thinking of Salem witch trials, Inquisitions, etc.)

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:41 PM
I justify it because of social contract. You cannot do so, but I do. Can you post this "social contract"? I would like to read it.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 01:42 PM
From Webster's New Ninth Collegiate Dictionary;
relativism 1 b; a veiw that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.

Since the preists, parishoners, and church maintain that molestation is wrong, and they constitute the group from the definition, relitively speaking, what happened was wrong.
Zakaths' morallity has no bearing on the fact that the people involved maintain that it was wrong, he beats them with their own stick, His stick does not come into play.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:42 PM
You're not insinuating that "religionist justice" never errs, are you?

:think: (thinking of Salem witch trials, Inquisitions, etc.)There goes your "social contract"! :rotfl:

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:44 PM
From Webster's New Ninth Collegiate Dictionary;
relativism 1 b; a veiw that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.

Since the preists, parishoners, and church maintain that molestation is wrong, and they constitute the group from the definition, relitively speaking, what happened was wrong.
Zakaths' morallity has no bearing on the fact that the people involved maintain that it was wrong, he beats them with their own stick, His stick does not come into play.Zakath doesn't have a "stick" that's the point!!!

Dude, get with the program.

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 01:45 PM
There goes your "social contract"! :rotfl:
Yup, shows what happens when you let the Church have too much influence in society... :rolleyes:

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 01:47 PM
Yup, shows what happens when you let the Church have too much influence in society... :rolleyes:Well, at least you concede the point. :up:

fool
August 31st, 2005, 01:49 PM
So basically when the molester who thinks what he's doing is right, asks you why it's wrong, you're just going to tell him, "because I say so". Pretty arrogant don't you think? Yeah, I bet that'll convince him.
Your right Poly,
it's my hands around his neck that will convince him.
It's my hands around his neck that will deliver justice as well, like I said before, Yaweh is out of the business.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 01:56 PM
Zakath doesn't have a "stick" that's the point!!!

Dude, get with the program.
Dude, read the definition, it said truths depend, not truths don't exist.

Poly
August 31st, 2005, 02:00 PM
I justify it because of social contract.

If a person is being punished because society says he should be punished, according to your beliefs, one still can never know if he really deserved that punishment. How can you sleep at night knowing you supported the punishment of a person when you claim that you can't really know if he did something wrong?

Turbo
August 31st, 2005, 02:03 PM
One would also think that considering rape and murder have NEVER been considered legal our forebears might have figured this out long before they were handed some slabs with the law on them.You agree that (most*) abortions are murder, don't you? And yet it has been legal for decades.


*I say most because you recently revealed that you don't think that a person who has not yet been implanted in a uterus is worthy of legal protection.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 02:12 PM
Dude, read the definition, it said truths depend, not truths don't exist.Your beef is with Zakath.

allsmiles
August 31st, 2005, 02:15 PM
Forget about evidence for a minute.

=

Knight, "uh-oh..."


Think about this....

I believe in absolute morality, therefore had I started a thread condemning wicked behavior it couldn't be considered inconsistent.

not necessarily. zak is a person who has to share this earth with all of the miscreants and scoundrels it has to offer, not to mention all of the good people as well. he can believe what he wants and he can say what he wants and he can see the world however he would like. you guys keep saying, "you can't, you can't," but he can and he does. he sees what he feels to be wrong and he judges it from his point of view, disregarding the point of view of others when formulating his own personal standards. his standards are consistent with his self, just as mine are consistent with myself. i believe rape is wrong (with no qualifiers) so i do not rape. other people disagree, and that's their right, but if their standards motivate them to violate my personal space or comfort i will take a personal interest in seeing them suffer.

until our paths cross, i and the pervert are at peace and i like it that way, his perverted nature does not break the peace, that is until he chooses to let it violate me.


Zakath DOES NOT BELIEVE actual immorality exists! Therefore when he starts these threads it only makes sense that he gets waxed like this.

i'm not sure if that's the case. he does believe immorality exists but only within his own scope of experience. at least that's how i see it.

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 02:16 PM
You agree that (most*) abortions are murder, don't you? And yet it has been legal for decades.


*I say most because you recently revealed that you don't think that a person who has not yet been implanted in a uterus is worthy of legal protection.

A morning after pill doesn't kill anybody, Turbo, and RU486 does. If you want to revisit that thread, do so, but let's not hijack this one in yet another direction.

allsmiles
August 31st, 2005, 02:18 PM
So basically when the molester who thinks what he's doing is right, asks you why it's wrong, you're just going to tell him, "because I say so". Pretty arrogant don't you think? Yeah, I bet that'll convince him.

not arrogant at all, that is what i say. it could be argued that "molesting children is wrong because god almighty mandated absolute morality and you are being judged on a divine, cosmic level and i speak for god on this matter."

that could be argued to be arrogant.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 02:18 PM
Your beef is with Zakath.
Right now my beef is with you.
If Yaweh tells you to sacrafice your child to him will you do it?
Your previous answer was non-resposive to the question.

Granite
August 31st, 2005, 02:19 PM
It was legal in Nazi Germany to murder Jews.

Was the Nazi's laws that legalized murder wrong? And if so on what basis?

Legally no, morally yes. Same situation with any other euthansia or genocide that's ever been state sanctioned. A legal loophole doesn't mean a lick.

taoist
August 31st, 2005, 02:28 PM
Ya know, I'm still trying to figure out how moral relativism implies no morality at all to our absolutist members.

Maybe it's yet another example of blind in the middle. Over here, we gotcher absolutely evil, never mind about examples; and over there we gotcher absolutely good, never mind about counterexamples; and in between, we got nothing at all, cause we just plain cain't see no relatively good or relatively evil, and never you mind that's where every example actually exists here in the real world.

If I were Dawkins, I'd call it "the tyrrany of the discontinuous mind," but in this case, I guess we could get by with the more circumscribed "moral myopia."

Moral myopia is immoral. Make something of that if you want to.

Crow
August 31st, 2005, 02:32 PM
Ya know, I'm still trying to figure out how moral relativism implies no morality at all to our absolutist members.

Maybe it's yet another example of blind in the middle. Over here, we gotcher absolutely evil, never mind about examples; and over there we gotcher absolutely good, never mind about counterexamples; and in between, we got nothing at all, cause we just plain cain't see no relatively good or relatively evil, and never you mind that's where every example actually exists here in the real world.

If I were Dawkins, I'd call it "the tyrrany of the discontinuous mind," but in this case, I guess we could get by with the more circumscribed "moral myopia."

Moral myopia is immoral. Make something of that if you want to.

tao, I don't think that anyone has tried to make the case that there are no relatives, but rather that absolutes do exist.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 02:38 PM
tao, I don't think that anyone has tried to make the case that there are no relatives, but rather that absolutes do exist.
Oh no, if you read this thread you'll see that Knight and Poly are trying to turn Moral Reletivity into Moral Negativity.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 03:01 PM
Oh no, if you read this thread you'll see that Knight and Poly are trying to turn Moral Reletivity into Moral Negativity.If you had the ability to think you wouldn't make that comment.

It isn't my job to make sure you are comprehending everything that is being said. :)

taoist
August 31st, 2005, 03:01 PM
tao, I don't think that anyone has tried to make the case that there are no relatives, but rather that absolutes do exist.Au contraire, Crow,

I just finished reading twelve pages of a webmaster-hijacking based on just that principle ... that a moral relativist cannot call anything immoral. On this one, Deb, I gotta go with the fool.

In peace, well, relative peace anyway, Jesse

;)

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 03:03 PM
Ya know, I'm still trying to figure out how moral relativism implies no morality at all to our absolutist members. I will gladly consider a moral standard for the moral relativist.

In fact...

I already told Zakath I would love to read his "social contract", I guess I will have to wait on that one. :chuckle:

allsmiles
August 31st, 2005, 03:04 PM
If you had the ability to think you wouldn't make that comment.

It isn't my job to make sure you are comprehending everything that is being said. :)

not trying to be disrespectful or confrontational, but do you have a job?

you must work from home, right? i'm very jealous:)

as for the moral contract, that strikes me as an unspoken common sense sort of thing that doesn't need to be spelled out. non-believers have the luxury of not needing their hands held when it comes to morality.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 03:07 PM
If you had the ability to think you wouldn't make that comment.

It isn't my job to make sure you are comprehending everything that is being said. :)
I comprehend just fine.
And you still haven't answered my question.
I ask you from one man to another.
From one Father to another.
If Yaweh tells you to sacrafice your child to him will you do it?

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 03:21 PM
not trying to be disrespectful or confrontational, but do you have a job?

you must work from home, right? i'm very jealous:)I live off the millions of dollars that pour into TOL daily. :rolleyes:

taoist
August 31st, 2005, 03:25 PM
I will gladly consider a moral standard for the moral relativist.

In fact...

I already told Zakath I would love to read his "social contract", I guess I will have to wait on that one. :chuckle: Well, then, consider this.

Pick any incident, a real life incident, that is, one you can objectively check with facts. Carefully weigh who gets hurt, who gets helped. Call this one incident your standard, with all others to be judged by whether they are better or worse, as measured by the sum of helps and hurts for every nose involved.

Call everything better moral ... everything worse immoral.

There ya go, a standard for moral relativism. The trick is to work off a zero point that exists, rather than some absolutist point at infinity that doesn't. And if you find too much gets judged moral, or too much immoral, you can always pick another real, physical standard. It's a lot more practical that way.

(The joke is, this is exactly what happens in modern jurisprudence via the principle of precedent.)

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 03:33 PM
There ya go, a standard for moral relativism.That wasn't a standard for moral relativism.

All you did was describe what moral relativism is!

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 03:40 PM
Pick any incident, a real life incident, that is, one you can objectively check with facts. Carefully weigh who gets hurt, who gets helped. Call this one incident your standard, with all others to be judged by whether they are better or worse, as measured by the sum of helps and hurts for every nose involved.

Call everything better moral ... everything worse immoral.For sake of argument lets assume everyone used your standard of morality.

That being assumed could you determine if anyone was more or less moral than anyone else?

In other words...
Let's assume there is a person who (using this standard) finds nothing immoral about molesting his young children. Could you (taoist) make a determination that he was less moral than anyone else? Can you do that without appealing to any other standard other than the one you have given?

fool
August 31st, 2005, 03:51 PM
That wasn't a standard for moral relativism.

All you did was describe what moral relativism is!
And there was a standard described.

Knight
August 31st, 2005, 03:55 PM
And there was a standard described.Not one that could indentify others immorality.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 03:58 PM
For sake of argument lets assume everyone used your standard of morality.
Let's assume everyone used yours.


That being assumed could you determine if anyone was more or less moral than anyone else?

Could you?


In other words...
Let's assume there is a person who (using this standard) finds nothing immoral about molesting his young children. Could you (taoist) make a determination that he was less moral than anyone else? Can you do that without appealing to any other standard other than the one you have given?
Let's assume that there is a person who (using your standard) finds they have been chosen to sacrafice their child to Yaweh. Could you (Knight) make a determination that he was right? How?

Crow
August 31st, 2005, 04:00 PM
Well, then, consider this.

Pick any incident, a real life incident, that is, one you can objectively check with facts. Carefully weigh who gets hurt, who gets helped. Call this one incident your standard, with all others to be judged by whether they are better or worse, as measured by the sum of helps and hurts for every nose involved.

Call everything better moral ... everything worse immoral.

There ya go, a standard for moral relativism. The trick is to work off a zero point that exists, rather than some absolutist point at infinity that doesn't. And if you find too much gets judged moral, or too much immoral, you can always pick another real, physical standard. It's a lot more practical that way.

(The joke is, this is exactly what happens in modern jurisprudence via the principle of precedent.)

Yup. And it's a lousy system. A few people own property. A private company wants to obtain their property so that they can develop it for profit. So rather than respecting the right of a person to possess their own property and having to make that person an offer that they will feel is acceptable for that property or even having to look for other property to purchase, it's decided that relatively more people will make relatively more money if the property owner is forced off his property and given a below-market value payment for the seized property. Oh, and if the present owner should take the case to court, which is his legal right, and lose, you might as well throw in charging him rent on his own property for the time that it took to receive the judgement, say five years or so.

Ok, now we have precident. Private developers can hook up with a town council and seize private property by eminent domain not to develop a road or something vital to the needs of the community, but to put up a strip mall, and pretty much tell you how much they're willing to pay for your property, as opposed to having to pay what the owner wants for his land or having to locate their mall where people are willing to sell.

So if Standard oil wants to seize a forest privately owned by a conservation group and set up a refinery, that's no longer wrong. They can make bunches more money than a lousy bunch of tree huggers who just happen to own that land. Heck, by the time the owners legally contest the seizure, they might end up owing the land grabber more than they were offered for the property in the first place. It's OK, because it's expedient, and it's been done before.

Or is it?

That's a problem I see when you toss abosolutes out. Because I am someone who bases my morality upon biblical standards, I perceive that it is absolutely wrong for one private party to seize another private party's property just because they possess greater economic and political influence.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 04:04 PM
Not one that could indentify others immorality.
But one that could lay guide lines regaurding who as a society we are going to strangle.

Turbo
August 31st, 2005, 04:05 PM
A morning after pill doesn't kill anybody, Turbo, and RU486 does. If you want to revisit that thread, do so, but let's not hijack this one in yet another direction.OK. You agree that RU486 kills innocent people. And it's legal. And there are various other forms of legal abortion which you recognize kill innocent lives.

Therefore do you agree that your previous assertion that murder has never been made legal is false?

Turbo
August 31st, 2005, 04:08 PM
Legally no, morally yes. Same situation with any other euthansia or genocide that's ever been state sanctioned. A legal loophole doesn't mean a lick.
It DOES mean that your assertion that murder has never been made legal is false.

And I'm surprised that you downplay the significance of these by calling them legal loopholes.

taoist
August 31st, 2005, 04:33 PM
Knight,
That wasn't a standard for moral relativism. All you did was describe what moral relativism is!

taoist,
A standard, in the usual sense, is something used to measure. My point is that the absolutist standard doesn't connect to real life. But I'm pleased to see you recognize the moral relativism inherent in the method I described of choosing standards.

But you're right that I didn't actually pick an incident to set the standard at work. So, let's pick an incident at random, a philistine, for example, passing across the street to avoid a hungry beggar. No one is helped, no one is harmed, and a minimal amount of social interaction. Let this be our nonmoral zero point.

Quote:
"Pick any incident, a real life incident, that is, one you can objectively check with facts. Carefully weigh who gets hurt, who gets helped. Call this one incident your standard, with all others to be judged by whether they are better or worse, as measured by the sum of helps and hurts for every nose involved.

Call everything better moral ... everything worse immoral."

Knight,

For sake of argument lets assume everyone used your standard of morality.

That being assumed could you determine if anyone was more or less moral than anyone else?

taoist,
I can't believe you passed over this ... "all others to be judged by whether they are better or worse, as measured by the sum of helps and hurts for every nose involved"

Knight,
In other words...
Let's assume there is a person who (using this standard) finds nothing immoral about molesting his young children. Could you (taoist) make a determination that he was less moral than anyone else? Can you do that without appealing to any other standard other than the one you have given?

taoist,
Who is helped in this incident? Who is harmed? How does this compare to our arbitrarily chosen philistine? By this standard, I'd say it's clear this person has behaved immorally, even using this relativisic standard. More, I'd say this person would be judged immoral by almost any standard so chosen.

taoist
August 31st, 2005, 04:42 PM
Yup. And it's a lousy system. A few people own property. A private company wants to obtain their property so that they can develop it for profit. So rather than respecting the right of a person to possess their own property and having to make that person an offer that they will feel is acceptable for that property or even having to look for other property to purchase, it's decided that relatively more people will make relatively more money if the property owner is forced off his property and given a below-market value payment for the seized property. Oh, and if the present owner should take the case to court, which is his legal right, and lose, you might as well throw in charging him rent on his own property for the time that it took to receive the judgement, say five years or so.

Ok, now we have precident. Private developers can hook up with a town council and seize private property by eminent domain not to develop a road or something vital to the needs of the community, but to put up a strip mall, and pretty much tell you how much they're willing to pay for your property, as opposed to having to pay what the owner wants for his land or having to locate their mall where people are willing to sell.

So if Standard oil wants to seize a forest privately owned by a conservation group and set up a refinery, that's no longer wrong. They can make bunches more money than a lousy bunch of tree huggers who just happen to own that land. Heck, by the time the owners legally contest the seizure, they might end up owing the land grabber more than they were offered for the property in the first place. It's OK, because it's expedient, and it's been done before.

Or is it?

That's a problem I see when you toss abosolutes out. Because I am someone who bases my morality upon biblical standards, I perceive that it is absolutely wrong for one private party to seize another private party's property just because they possess greater economic and political influence. Wonderful. But ...

I can find a biblical precedent not just for tossing a landowner off his land without payment ... but for killing him, his wife, his kids and even his livestock in the process. The choice of an absolute standard, it turns out, depends on your relative beliefs.

If there are inherent difficulties with a relative system, they are at least subject to revision through legislative feedback. Find anything that'll do the same job in an absolute system and I'll say you've made your point. The bible, as I've mentioned before, is an inherently immoral, primitive and downright barbaric standard from which to set up a system of moral beliefs for human beings.

Ask Job's kids if you don't believe me. The first ten, that is.

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 07:00 PM
200 posts later, and has anyone actually addressed the opening post? :chuckle:

fool
August 31st, 2005, 07:12 PM
200 posts later, and has anyone actually addressed the opening post? :chuckle:
I thought I did somewhere, somthin about hanging the preists, their bosses, their bosses bosses,ect.

Zakath
August 31st, 2005, 08:01 PM
I thought I did somewhere, somthin about hanging the preists, their bosses, their bosses bosses,ect.
[Montgomery Burns voice]

Excellent, excellent.

[/Montgomery Burns voice]

death2impiety
August 31st, 2005, 08:32 PM
I like cupcakes

fool
August 31st, 2005, 08:35 PM
I like cupcakes
Relative to what?

death2impiety
August 31st, 2005, 08:36 PM
Oh and, to answer the q on the thread, I send my offerings directly to World Vision so I'm in high hopes that they go to starving children but hey, ya never know...

death2impiety
August 31st, 2005, 08:36 PM
Relative to what?

relative to raw kittens

fool
August 31st, 2005, 08:40 PM
relative to raw kittens
I'll put that down as an "I don't need to try to know", at least in my book.

death2impiety
August 31st, 2005, 08:42 PM
I'll put that down as an "I don't need to try to know", at least in my book.

what does that have to do with the price of eggs?

fool
August 31st, 2005, 08:52 PM
what does that have to do with the price of eggs?
Probably nothing.

death2impiety
August 31st, 2005, 08:57 PM
Probably nothing.

relatively nothing or absolutely nothing?

fool
August 31st, 2005, 09:14 PM
relatively nothing or absolutely nothing?
relative to what?

death2impiety
August 31st, 2005, 09:26 PM
relative to what?

raw kittens and egg costs.

fool
August 31st, 2005, 09:28 PM
raw kittens and egg costs.
probably nothing.

death2impiety
August 31st, 2005, 10:30 PM
probably nothing.


nothing spelled backwards is gnihton.

allsmiles
September 1st, 2005, 06:31 AM
Wonderful. But ...

I can find a biblical precedent not just for tossing a landowner off his land without payment ... but for killing him, his wife, his kids and even his livestock in the process. The choice of an absolute standard, it turns out, depends on your relative beliefs.

If there are inherent difficulties with a relative system, they are at least subject to revision through legislative feedback. Find anything that'll do the same job in an absolute system and I'll say you've made your point. The bible, as I've mentioned before, is an inherently immoral, primitive and downright barbaric standard from which to set up a system of moral beliefs for human beings.

Ask Job's kids if you don't believe me. The first ten, that is.

ooh ooh! don't forget the levite and his concubine! or lot gettin' jiggy with his daughters, or david (the man after their god's own heart) murdering that hittite after bumpin' uglies with his wife, don't forget that Moses was a murderer, don't forget all of the concubines, the hundreds of wives, the city populations taken into slavery or wiped out, don't forget when Elijah wiped out the priests of Baal (according to the bible, the price for freedom of religion is death:))etc.

Granite
September 1st, 2005, 06:49 AM
It DOES mean that your assertion that murder has never been made legal is false.

And I'm surprised that you downplay the significance of these by calling them legal loopholes.

I misspoke, my bad. You're absolutely correct. (By the way I have NEVER seen a Christian on TOL admit they were out of line or inaccurate in a post.):devil:

I'm not downplaying anything, I'm saying that loopholes like this are grotesque and don't justify a thing.

Happy Thursday!

Turbo
September 1st, 2005, 08:03 AM
I misspoke, my bad. You're absolutely correct.

:up:

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 08:09 AM
Wonderful. But ...

I can find a biblical precedent not just for tossing a landowner off his land without payment ... but for killing him, his wife, his kids and even his livestock in the process. The choice of an absolute standard, it turns out, depends on your relative beliefs.

If there are inherent difficulties with a relative system, they are at least subject to revision through legislative feedback. Find anything that'll do the same job in an absolute system and I'll say you've made your point. The bible, as I've mentioned before, is an inherently immoral, primitive and downright barbaric standard from which to set up a system of moral beliefs for human beings.

Ask Job's kids if you don't believe me. The first ten, that is.

tao, can you cite that precident? I'm curious if was an action taken on the direct command of God, such as the Jews taking the land of Cannan, or it is an example of humans using the justice system God set up for when they deal with civil and criminal law.

Zakath
September 1st, 2005, 08:26 AM
tao, can you cite that precident? I'm curious if was an action taken on the direct command of God, such as the Jews taking the land of Cannan, or it is an example of humans using the justice system God set up for when they deal with civil and criminal law.
Perhaps the parable in Mt. 22?

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 08:41 AM
Perhaps the parable in Mt. 22?

Zakath, is it your belief that the feast and related events described by Christ in the parable at the begining of Matt 22 were meant to by Him to be understood as actual events and that this was an instruction from Him on how people should administer criminal justice?

Or is it another portion of Matt 22 that you are referencing? (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat022.html)

I can see that parts of that chapter deal with justice--paying taxes for instance. Could you be a bit more specific?

Zakath
September 1st, 2005, 10:37 AM
First of all, I meant the first 14 verses. I should have specified.

I'm merely guessing that the beginning Mt. 22 is the text Taoist was referring to. To me it doesn't really fit the discussion well, but it was the closest thing I could think of... :nono:

That disclaimer made, we'll continue...


Zakath, is it your belief that the feast and related events described by Christ in the parable at the begining of Matt 22 were meant to by Him to be understood as actual events and that this was an instruction from Him on how people should administer criminal justice?

Or is it another portion of Matt 22 that you are referencing? (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat022.html)

I can see that parts of that chapter deal with justice--paying taxes for instance. Could you be a bit more specific?I've heard it taught both ways. I am inclined to go with the more apocalyptic viewpoint about a future ingathering since it specifically refers to basileia ouranos (the kingdom of heaven) which, to my understanding, was not a metaphor for any earthly manifestation but was actually referring to YHWH's kingdom...

taoist
September 1st, 2005, 03:14 PM
tao, can you cite that precident? I'm curious if was an action taken on the direct command of God, such as the Jews taking the land of Cannan, or it is an example of humans using the justice system God set up for when they deal with civil and criminal law. Hmm.

Yes, it's a reference to the genocide in Canaan. No, I don't believe it was a direct command of any god, and certainly not one worthy of worship. Yes, I do believe this is an example of humans exacting a form of barbaric justice in the name of a god.

I told ya once about that conversation with my sister. The one that ended with the taoist saying pretty heatedly, "Everyone's got a god who says it's okay to kill people. Well, it's not!"

But it's understandable in the context of a primitive tribal society. Our context is, thankfully, much different. Demonstrably better, I would say, looking at the progress we've made precisely by abandoning the barbaric customs of the past.

Granite
September 1st, 2005, 03:19 PM
Hmm.

Yes, it's a reference to the genocide in Canaan. No, I don't believe it was a direct command of any god, and certainly not one worthy of worship. Yes, I do believe this is an example of humans exacting a form of barbaric justice in the name of a god.

I told ya once about that conversation with my sister. The one that ended with the taoist saying pretty heatedly, "Everyone's got a god who says it's okay to kill people. Well, it's not!"

But it's understandable in the context of a primitive tribal society. Our context is, thankfully, much different. Demonstrably better, I would say, looking at the progress we've made precisely by abandoning the barbaric customs of the past.

The barbarism of the OT is totally at odds with the peace and love advocated by Jesus (one version of Jesus, anyway). Even Jesus the Militant never supported the horrific violence of Jehovah.

taoist
September 1st, 2005, 03:29 PM
Granite, did you ever wonder what Peter was doing with that sword?

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 04:23 PM
Hmm.

Yes, it's a reference to the genocide in Canaan. No, I don't believe it was a direct command of any god, and certainly not one worthy of worship. Yes, I do believe this is an example of humans exacting a form of barbaric justice in the name of a god.

I told ya once about that conversation with my sister. The one that ended with the taoist saying pretty heatedly, "Everyone's got a god who says it's okay to kill people. Well, it's not!"

But it's understandable in the context of a primitive tribal society. Our context is, thankfully, much different. Demonstrably better, I would say, looking at the progress we've made precisely by abandoning the barbaric customs of the past.

I believe, as your sister did, that it was a specific command of God, but we aren't going to agree there, obviously.

And I remember you telling me about that conversation, but I had forgotten the specifics.

Personally, I think that some of the stuff that passes for justice today is much more barbaric than the scriptural punishments. Tossing people in jail for theft as oppossed to making them work and make restitution to their victims. Tossing murderers in jail and turning them loose in a few years to murder again.

How about tossing people in jail for child molestation for a few years then turning them loose on those who cannot adequately defend themselves again? To me, that's barbaric, and I'm glad that it isn't being done in the name of God.

taoist
September 1st, 2005, 05:23 PM
Crow,
To me, that's barbaric, and I'm glad that it isn't being done in the name of God.

taoist,
At present, Crow, we have these entities, named in some mad spate of Orwellian excess, Departments of Corrections. When, or maybe just if, they actually become corrective, rather than merely retributive (and about as successful in the latter as the former), we'll have taken the next broad step toward a better civilization. Retreating to biblical penal codes does not form any kind of solution, however. Whatever the answer is, it lies ahead of us, not behind.

More, I believe if we can train a dog to behave in socially acceptable ways, despite the lesser capacity of our canine cousins, we can certainly do the same with our human brothers and sisters. This thought is enough to convince me a solution can be found.

***

Crow,
I believe, as your sister did, that it was a specific command of God, but we aren't going to agree there, obviously.

taoist,
And I don't believe you'd care for what, to me, are the obvious adjectives attachable to such religious beliefs. Everybody learns at their own speed, as unfortunate as it sometimes seems. I take a certain amount of comfort in knowing most christians would boggle at the idea of justifying such an action today.

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 05:33 PM
Crow,
To me, that's barbaric, and I'm glad that it isn't being done in the name of God.

taoist,
At present, Crow, we have these entities, named in some mad spate of Orwellian excess, Departments of Corrections. When, or maybe just if, they actually become corrective, rather than merely retributive (and about as successful in the latter as the former), we'll have taken the next broad step toward a better civilization. Retreating to biblical penal codes does not form any kind of solution, however. Whatever the answer is, it lies ahead of us, not behind.

More, I believe if we can train a dog to behave in socially acceptable ways, despite the lesser capacity of our canine cousins, we can certainly do the same with our human brothers and sisters. This thought is enough to convince me a solution can be found.

You can train some dogs. And in some cases, the proclivity for violence is so ingrained that the best you can do is destroy them.



And I don't believe you'd care for what, to me, are the obvious adjectives attachable to such religious beliefs. Everybody learns at their own speed, as unfortunate as it sometimes seems. I take a certain amount of comfort in knowing most christians would boggle at the idea of justifying such an action today.

tao, y'all should know by now that I don't get personally perturbed by those particular adjectives. I remove them from the board because they are inappropriate here.

It's not a matter of learning. We have each chosen a different set of values, a different worldview, and while we can agree on some things and get along fairly well considering how different our perspectives are, never the twain shall meet on some issues, and this looks to be one of them.

taoist
September 1st, 2005, 05:34 PM
Zakath,
Where are your tithes going? ... or offerings for that matter... Are they going to pay for the illegal and immoral activities of your church leaders?

taoist,
Well, just for grins, let's try to answer the OP while Knight's not looking.

:chuckle:

The obvious, moral response to these activities is to change religious orientation. The decision to force humans to vow lifelong celibacy is so outrageously unnatural that the consequences should have been obvious. Defying natural biological law is as foolish as defying gravity, and just as useless.

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 05:39 PM
Zakath,
Where are your tithes going? ... or offerings for that matter... Are they going to pay for the illegal and immoral activities of your church leaders?

taoist,
Well, just for grins, let's try to answer the OP while Knight's not looking.

Well, for grins and giggles and the heck of it, back to the OP. If one's church leaders are commiting immoral activities, one shouldn't be handing one's money over to that church.

taoist
September 1st, 2005, 05:40 PM
(tao, y'all should know by now that I don't get personally perturbed by those particular adjectives. I remove them from the board because they are inappropriate here.


Note to lurkers ... Crow did not edit my post as I gave her no reason to do so. I know what board I'm posting.)

Knight
September 1st, 2005, 05:43 PM
Hey fool thanks for calling in!

You sounded great! :up:

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 05:45 PM
(tao, y'all should know by now that I don't get personally perturbed by those particular adjectives. I remove them from the board because they are inappropriate here.


Note to lurkers ... Crow did not edit my post as I gave her no reason to do so. I know what board I'm posting.)

Of course I didn't. I referred to your reference.

Y'all getting paranoid in your old age? :chuckle:

taoist
September 1st, 2005, 05:46 PM
Hey, Knight ... did Bob answer my question?

taoist
September 1st, 2005, 05:52 PM
Crow,
Y'all getting paranoid in your old age? :chuckle:

taoist,
It's them revenooers got me looking over my shoulder. They think I gots something to do with that thar still in the redneck basement.

I deny everything














(Thanks, Thirsty, an ya can pour me another one.)

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 05:53 PM
Hey, Knight ... did Bob answer my question?

tao, Bob didn't host that show, Knight and Lion did.

If y'all will give me some address where I can send it, I'll let you borrow a copy of Bob's Plot if you want to get an idea of why he is OV.

taoist
September 1st, 2005, 06:01 PM
I don't give out my address to anyone, Crow ... sorry!

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 06:01 PM
I don't give out my address to anyone, Crow ... sorry!

I know that. Is there somewhere I can send it that you can get it?

Lovejoy
September 1st, 2005, 06:02 PM
tao, Bob didn't host that show, Knight and Lion did.

If y'all will give me some address where I can send it, I'll let you borrow a copy of Bob's Plot if you want to get an idea of why he is OV.
Doh! I got crossed on that concept, as well. I hope that if they tried to use any of my questions they were able to translate them into an applicable state. Sorry guys.

taoist
September 1st, 2005, 06:03 PM
Why does everyone always forget ... there is no taoist!

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 06:12 PM
Why does everyone always forget ... there is no taoist!

Because for someone who doesn't exist, he generates a heck of a lot of post.

taoist
September 1st, 2005, 06:40 PM
Crow,
... generates a heck of a lot of compost.

taoist,
I only said I couldn't grow them greens. Never said I couldn't fertilize 'em.

Crow
September 1st, 2005, 06:41 PM
Crow,
... generates a heck of a lot of compost.

taoist,
I only said I couldn't grow them greens. Never said I couldn't fertilize 'em.

:shut:

Knight
September 1st, 2005, 06:42 PM
Hey, Knight ... did Bob answer my question?How could Bob answer your question when Bob wasn't on the show?

Lion answered your question for Bob. :)

Knight
September 1st, 2005, 06:44 PM
Doh! I got crossed on that concept, as well. I hope that if they tried to use any of my questions they were able to translate them into an applicable state. Sorry guys.I think we answered one of your question on EACH show.

Thanks for the input!!! :up:

fool
September 1st, 2005, 07:44 PM
Knight;
did you do any talking?

Knight
September 1st, 2005, 11:07 PM
Knight;
did you do any talking?Sure, but not as much as Lion he is my mentor.

Jujubee
September 1st, 2005, 11:23 PM
I always think I could be better at tithing...even if my finances are hard right now..