PDA

View Full Version : Attention moral relativists... (HOF thread)



Knight
June 19th, 2002, 10:55 PM
OK, I have a couple questions for all you who do not believe there is such a thing as absolute morality.

Question #1
Can a government (ANY GOVERNMENT) pass or inact a law that is wrong?

Question #2
If a society (ANY SOCIETY) deems something socially acceptable, can the society be wrong?

Question #3
In a democracy, can the majority be wrong?

Gerald
June 20th, 2002, 08:33 AM
No, No, and No, because in Real Life (TM), the right of way goes to he what has the biggest stick...

Zakath
June 20th, 2002, 08:34 AM
Interesting questions, Knight. Unlike Gerald's succinct response, mine's a bit wordier...
To answer your questions accurately it would help to understand a few basic ideas first.

Question #1
Can a government (ANY GOVERNMENT) pass or inact a law that is wrong? From my perspective, this depends mainly on the definition of "wrong." Defining "wrong" for a society or government involves deciding what concepts like "fair" or "just" mean to an individual and to the society in which that government exists. I think history has demonstrated that these concepts have varied widely from society to society.


Question #2
If a society (ANY SOCIETY) deems something socially acceptable, can the society be wrong? The definition of what is "socially acceptable" changes over time for many things. For example...
About one hundred years ago, it was not "socially acceptable" for adults to engage in "mixed bathing" (i.e., sharing swimming facilities) within the society of the old holiness churches. The pentecostals picked this trait up and even in the early 1970's it was against the rules in the Assemblies of God to have mixed bathing for adults at any church-sponsored function. Is it "wrong" to allow adults of different genders to share space at the beach?

It was "socially unacceptable" in the US for women to work in factories until the early to mid 1940's. Only poor women did so until the necessities of running factories in WWII changed that perception and women began entering the workforce in increasing numbers. Were the upper classes "right" and the poorer classes "wrong"?

It was "socially acceptable" to own human slaves in certain parts of the U.S. until the mid-ninteenth century. Were those who supported slavery "wrong" and those who opposed it "right"?

For centuries, in European societies, it was socially acceptable to arrest, torture, and kill those whose religious faith differed from that supported by the crown. Were the purges and inquisitions by the various religious groups "wrong"?


Question #3
In a democracy, can the majority be wrong?If by democracy, you mean an Athenian-style democracy, then I'd say it is possible for the majority to be wrong on any specific issue. Time and experience have traditionally been seen as the best deciders of whether a given position is "right" or "wrong".

Sealeaf
June 20th, 2002, 09:00 AM
Question #1
Can a government (ANY GOVERNMENT) pass or inact a law that is wrong?

A government either one ruled by one fallible human or one governed by a number of fallible humans can certainly make a choice that is not in my best interest. That I believe is "wrong". Example: The unnesscessary restrictions placed on the use of fireworks in many US states.

Further these fallible humans also may make decisions which are not in the best interest of the nation as a whole. Example: Prohibition. Or, given the cost of alcoholism to the nation, perhaps the mistake was not adequately enforcing prohibition. Drunk drivers should be excecuted on the second offence.

Question #2
If a society (ANY SOCIETY) deems something socially acceptable, can the society be wrong?

This is a tautology. You are saying, "If a society says something is acceptable to it can that thing not be accepable to it." Duh! Of course not! Society can be wrong about something being harmless. Refer to the whole alcohol thing. But society is the sole judge of what it deems acceptable, that's what "socially acceptable" means.

A tautology is a statement which is true or false purely because of the form of the statement not its content. If the judge has declared O.J. innocent, then has the Judge said O.J. has not been proven guilty? That's a similar tautlogy. But I sure would not let him date my daughter! The above statement is true only about the decision of the judge, not the actual inocence of O.J.

Society can of course decide to tolerate things most members would not choose to do themselves. Society can deem acceptable things individual members do not find acceptable. Societies can deem acceptable things that are contrary to their own best interest, even their survival.

Question #3
In a democracy, can the majority be wrong?


Yes the majority can be wrong. The rule of the majority is followed in a Democracy, not because it is always right, but because it is more likely to be just. We have to live under the laws we choose for ourselves. If we choose badly we have no one to blame but ourselves. Since we have to lie in the bed we want the priviledge of making it ourselves.

Gerald
June 20th, 2002, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Sealeaf
Drunk drivers should be excecuted on the second offence.


Any particular reason for the second offense? One would think that the prospect of losing your head for a first offense would be a far greater deterrent.

Goose
June 20th, 2002, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Question #1
Can a government (ANY GOVERNMENT) pass or inact a law that is wrong?
Yes


Question #2
If a society (ANY SOCIETY) deems something socially acceptable, can the society be wrong?

Yes


Question #3
In a democracy, can the majority be wrong? Yes

Goose
June 20th, 2002, 12:50 PM
The definition of what is "socially acceptable" changes over time for many things. For example...

About one hundred years ago, it was not "socially acceptable" for adults to engage in "mixed bathing" (i.e., sharing swimming facilities) within the society of the old holiness churches. The pentecostals picked this trait up and even in the early 1970's it was against the rules in the Assemblies of God to have mixed bathing for adults at any church-sponsored function. Is it "wrong" to allow adults of different genders to share space at the beach?

It was "socially unacceptable" in the US for women to work in factories until the early to mid 1940's. Only poor women did so until the necessities of running factories in WWII changed that perception and women began entering the workforce in increasing numbers. Were the upper classes "right" and the poorer classes "wrong"?

It was "socially acceptable" to own human slaves in certain parts of the U.S. until the mid-ninteenth century. Were those who supported slavery "wrong" and those who opposed it "right"?

For centuries, in European societies, it was socially acceptable to arrest, torture, and kill those whose religious faith differed from that supported by the crown. Were the purges and inquisitions by the various religious groups "wrong"?It was "socially acceptable" to haul Jews off to be slaughtered in Nazi Germany. It was their opinion to do so. I'm also sure that's it's your opinion that this was wrong. How would we go about deciding who is more right, with no standard or authority to appeal to?

Knight
June 20th, 2002, 01:57 PM
Zakath states...
From my perspective, this depends mainly on the definition of "wrong."Feel free to define "wrong" however you choose. So I ask again....

Question #1
Can a government (ANY GOVERNMENT) pass or inact a law that is wrong?

Zakath continues....
The definition of what is "socially acceptable" changes over time for many things. For example...

About one hundred years ago, it was not "socially acceptable" for adults to engage in "mixed bathing" (i.e., sharing swimming facilities) within the society of the old holiness churches. The pentecostals picked this trait up and even in the early 1970's it was against the rules in the Assemblies of God to have mixed bathing for adults at any church-sponsored function. Is it "wrong" to allow adults of different genders to share space at the beach?

It was "socially unacceptable" in the US for women to work in factories until the early to mid 1940's. Only poor women did so until the necessities of running factories in WWII changed that perception and women began entering the workforce in increasing numbers. Were the upper classes "right" and the poorer classes "wrong"?

It was "socially acceptable" to own human slaves in certain parts of the U.S. until the mid-ninteenth century. Were those who supported slavery "wrong" and those who opposed it "right"?

For centuries, in European societies, it was socially acceptable to arrest, torture, and kill those whose religious faith differed from that supported by the crown. Were the purges and inquisitions by the various religious groups "wrong"?Thank you for the exercise in the obvious. But you didn't answer the question but merely stated some items that have and have not been socially acceptable. So I ask again....

Question #2
If a society (ANY SOCIETY) deems something socially acceptable, can the society be wrong?

You continue....
If by democracy, you mean an Athenian-style democracy, then I'd say it is possible for the majority to be wrong on any specific issue. Time and experience have traditionally been seen as the best deciders of whether a given position is "right" or "wrong".Any form of democracy will do.

But let me give you a specific example and you tell me if the majority could be wrong.

Let's assume a group of 100 or so families move to a completely (until now) deserted island in the Pacific Ocean. Let's assume this Island is not owned or governed by ANY country or entity whatsoever. Let's assume further that these families settle the island and start their own country which is ruled by a strict democracy (majority rules).

The new government creates the laws of the land by the voting majority.

Question #3 - restated
Is it possible for this new government to create laws that you would consider "wrong"?

Projill
June 20th, 2002, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Gerald
No, No, and No, because in Real Life (TM), the right of way goes to he what has the biggest stick...

Should I be snickering right now? :D

Zakath
June 20th, 2002, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Feel free to define "wrong" however you choose. No, we've actually discussd my definition of wrong several times and you don't accept it as "relevant." You've posted the question, so let's use your defiinition. :)


Let's assume a group of 100 or so families move to a completely (until now) deserted island in the Pacific Ocean. Let's assume this Island is not owned or governed by ANY country or entity whatsoever. Let's assume further that these families settle the island and start their own country which is ruled by a strict democracy (majority rules).

The new government creates the laws of the land by the voting majority.

Question #3 - restated
Is it possible for this new government to create laws that you would consider "wrong"? Certainly. And my qualifications that "time will tell" still apply.Those things that are helpful to the survival of the civilization will be considered "right" and those that injure the civilization will be considered "wrong" by the members of the civilization.

Knight
June 20th, 2002, 07:10 PM
Zakath states...
No, we've actually discussd my definition of wrong several times and you don't accept it as "relevant." You've posted the question, so let's use your definition.Actually it is you who claims your opinions are irrelevant not me! But that is for another thread.

Back to topic...
Lets say wrong, meaning "not right";) Wrong meaning bad, should be repealed, etc. Feel free to add or change the definition if you like.

You continue...
Certainly. And my qualifications that "time will tell" still apply. Those things that are helpful to the survival of the civilization will be considered "right" and those that injure the civilization will be considered "wrong" by the members of the civilization.Hmmmm, I have many thoughts regarding your answer.

My first thought is I am wondering how long it would take you to determine if a law were "wrong" based on your "time will tell" test. Will you have to wait until the new government fails to make the determination? Will you ever really be able to make a determination? I mean after all you are clearly not going to live to see the outcomes of most laws.

Furthermore (and more importantly) I can think of many laws that could be passed by our imaginary majority that might be helpful to our imaginary society that would be HIGHLY immoral compared to say what is currently socially acceptable in the USA and most of the modern world.

For instance, what if our island people voted by majority that the woman be the concubines of the men on the island in an effort to increase the population of the new found country (not to mention convenience and pleasure facter:(). The woman were fiercely opposed to the law but they were outvoted by the men. Ultimately, the law had a very positive effect for the island as the population increased dramatically and the men were happy and satisfied. The women were miserable but remained the minority due to another law passed by the men that stated men MUST remain in a majority position by whatever means necessary.

Would you consider this sexual slaves law "wrong" even though it does not violate your above stated rule as to what would make you think a law was "wrong"?

admiral_d
June 20th, 2002, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Knight
OK, I have a couple questions for all you who do not believe there is such a thing as absolute morality.

Question #1
Can a government (ANY GOVERNMENT) pass or inact a law that is wrong?

Yes...The question that is begging is what is the standard for right?



Question #2
If a society (ANY SOCIETY) deems something socially acceptable, can the society be wrong?


Yes, but in this case, society has to be educated as to the prinicple of rightness...




Question #3
In a democracy, can the majority be wrong?

Oh, most definately yes... The world is wrong in it's view of God and His character of Love....but it "sees thru a glass darkly" and is doing the best that it can in this world of various degrees of rebellion....

Knight
June 21st, 2002, 11:52 PM
Zakath?

Zakath
June 22nd, 2002, 04:54 AM
I thought this thread was addressed to "Moral Relativists", not to me alone. Am I the only one left?

Goose
June 22nd, 2002, 09:48 AM
I think so.

Zakath
June 22nd, 2002, 09:53 AM
It's a tough job, but I can handle it... :D

Goose
June 26th, 2002, 07:17 AM
I'd like to see your reply Zakath.

Zakath
June 26th, 2002, 08:26 AM
In response to goose's request:


Originally posted by Knight
My first thought is I am wondering how long it would take you to determine if a law were "wrong" based on your "time will tell" test...Will you ever really be able to make a determination? I mean after all you are clearly not going to live to see the outcomes of most laws.I would suggest that the "right" and "wrong" of a law should be evaluated by its effects. Due to the wide variety of legal statues and their also widely variant effect, I cannot suggest the type of "one size fits all" answer you seem to be asking for. To be effective, evaluations should be conducted on a case-by-case basis. Some evaluations could be rapid within a year or a few years, while others might take longer. It depends upon the individual circumstance being considered.


Will you have to wait until the new government fails to make the determination?That's a bit extreme. Governments pass "bad" legislation all the time and do not collapse. Much of it is repealed or repaired, over time.


Furthermore (and more importantly) I can think of many laws that could be passed by our imaginary majority that might be helpful to our imaginary society that would be HIGHLY immoral compared to say what is currently socially acceptable in the USA and most of the modern world.That's not really surprising, Knight. I can think of laws that allow things in the USA that I view as immoral. I don't think it would be difficult at all for you to think up some hypothetical law or regulation that would be different from current US law.


For instance, what if our island people voted by majority that the woman be the concubines of the men on the island in an effort to increase the population of the new found country (not to mention convenience and pleasure facter:(). The woman were fiercely opposed to the law but they were outvoted by the men. Ultimately, the law had a very positive effect for the island as the population increased dramatically and the men were happy and satisfied. The women were miserable but remained the minority due to another law passed by the men that stated men MUST remain in a majority position by whatever means necessary.This scenario has already been debated here on TOL, at least once by my recollection. Can't you come up with a new one?


Would you consider this sexual slaves law "wrong" even though it does not violate your above stated rule as to what would make you think a law was "wrong"? It's fascinating how you slip inflammatory language like "sexual slaves" into the argument, after the fact.

The definition of concubine does not encompass sexual slavery, to wit:


concubine
1. Law. A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him.
2. In certain societies, such as imperial China, a woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status.
Source - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

So, since concubines are not "sexual slaves", your question is not germaine to the subject we are discussing.

Knight
June 26th, 2002, 09:21 AM
Zakath writes....
I would suggest that the "right" and "wrong" of a law should be evaluated by its effects.So how can you tell ahead of time what laws you should support (vote for) of reject (not vote for).

Furthermore, isn't VERY possible (as I have described in a previous post) that a law may be VERY beneficial to the majority but could still be an evil law? Therefore the law would pass your "time will tell" test but the law would still be evil.

You continue...
I can think of laws that allow things in the USA that I view as immoral.Can you give me an example?

You continue...
This scenario has already been debated here on TOL, at least once by my recollection. Can't you come up with a new one? You didn't have a good answer then, so I was wondering if you had any good answer now. :D

Please correct me if I am wrong but to this point you have given us only ONE criteria for how you (as a moral relativist) can determine if a law is "bad" or "good" and that is the "time will tell" criteria, is that correct?

Zakath
June 26th, 2002, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Knight
So how can you tell ahead of time what laws you should support (vote for) of reject (not vote for). By extant historical experience (mine and others') and by my own subjective sense of right and wrong.


Furthermore, isn't VERY possible (as I have described in a previous post) that a law may be VERY beneficial to the majority but could still be an evil law? Therefore the law would pass your "time will tell" test but the law would still be evil.
I have no way of assessing the probability implicit in "very possible". The weak spot in your argument is that, in a pure democracy, that it is relatively easy to pass any law or ordinance that the majority agrees with. But, as the old saying goes, "the devil's in the details". For instance, in the example you gave, the perception of "evil" would depend entirely on one's viewpoint. If you were a woman, or a romantic, it's likely that you would perceive the moral value of the law (good or evil) differently than if you were a man.

Your argument also begs the point that many (possibly most?)laws are not inherently "good" or "evil", they are merely laws.


You didn't have a good answer then...In your opinion. :)


Please correct me if I am wrong but to this point you have given us only ONE criteria for how you (as a moral relativist) can determine if a law is "bad" or "good" and that is the "time will tell" criteria, is that correct?
Until this post, that was true. It's not that I do not have other criteria, but it's difficult on this venue for me to debate multiple points simultaneously. I tend to lose track of one of them after several posts... :o

I have provided you with another at the beginning of this post. Of course this brings us round, for the umpteenth time, to the absolute versus subjective morality argument, upon which we are apparently not going to agree...

Hank
June 26th, 2002, 11:20 AM
Many people say they believe in absolute morals but determining what the absolute is, is a real problem.

Zakath
June 26th, 2002, 11:32 AM
Hank,

I agree with your point to a limited extent. For many of the posters on this board, the "absolute" might be "the Bible" or "what the Bible says". The difficulty is getting them to agree, absolutely, on the second one... ;)

Knight
June 26th, 2002, 03:05 PM
Zakath states...
By extant historical experience (mine and others') and by my own subjective sense of right and wrong.Well, your new criteria "time did tell" is contradictory to your "time will tell" criteria.

You continue...
I have no way of assessing the probability implicit in "very possible". The weak spot in your argument is that, in a pure democracy, that it is relatively easy to pass any law or ordinance that the majority agrees with. But, as the old saying goes, "the devil's in the details". For instance, in the example you gave, the perception of "evil" would depend entirely on one's viewpoint. If you were a woman, or a romantic, it's likely that you would perceive the moral value of the law (good or evil) differently than if you were a man.Exactely my point!

So you Zakath could NOT by any means stated (so far) condemn the hypothetical democracy for their instituting sexual slavery law. Correct?

You continue...
Your argument also begs the point that many (possibly most?)laws are not inherently "good" or "evil", they are merely laws.Only from your perspective as a moral relativist. From my perspective I can make a determination ahead of time if a law is "good" or "bad" or even "evil"!

You opened with this statement....
by my own subjective sense of right and wrong.In your opinion is your subjective sense of right and wrong any more right or wrong than my sense?

Knight
June 26th, 2002, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Hank
Many people say they believe in absolute morals but determining what the absolute is, is a real problem. That is true and I agree with you.

However, it is far more relevant to determine if such a thing exists than it is to discuss its attributes.

If absolutes exist, a god exists. If no god exists than there is nothing more to reality than atoms and molecules and atoms and molecules cannot be "evil" or "righteous". I think there is AMPLE evidence to suggest that moral absolutes do indeed exist and the vast majority of these absolutes are acknowledged by the vast majority of humans living and that have ever lived on this planet.

Zakath
June 26th, 2002, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Well, your new criteria "time did tell" is contradictory to your "time will tell" criteria. It merely demonstrates that there are multiple tools available. For some jobs I use a hammer and for others a pair of pliers, metaphorically speaking. You sound like you are searching for the mother of all Swiss Army Knives, kind of a "one tool does it all"... ;)


Exactely my point! Then we agree. Wasn't that easy? :)


snipped Knight's non-germaine question about non-existent slavery... You know Knight, we could really carry on meaniful dialogue if you'd read my previous responses before firing off a response to something I haven't said...


...From my perspective I can make a determination ahead of time if a law is "good" or "bad" or even "evil"! Well good for you. So can I, based upon the criteria we've already discussed.


In your opinion is your subjective sense of right and wrong any more right or wrong than my sense?Since I do not know you personally, I can't reasonably be expected to make a general statement. Other than your postings on this website, I have little by which to measure your "sense".

Zakath
June 26th, 2002, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Knight
..I think there is AMPLE evidence to suggest that moral absolutes do indeed ...
Then how about trotting out some of your evidence and stop playing word games about sexual deviancy and slavery...

That would be a productive discussion. :)

Knight
June 26th, 2002, 03:28 PM
Zakath states...
Since I do not know you personally, I can't reasonably be expected to make a general statement. Other than your postings on this website, I have little by which to measure your "sense".Apparently we have a different idea of what "subjective" means.

Zakath
June 26th, 2002, 03:32 PM
Part of our difficulty in communication appears to be that we seem to have many different ideas about the definitions of words.

Perhaps you'd like to explain what you mean when you use the term "subjective" in the context of this discussion... :)

Knight
June 26th, 2002, 03:45 PM
Zakath,states...
Perhaps you'd like to explain what you mean when you use the term "subjective" in the context of this discussion.Why should I define a word that you used to describe your world view? Wouldn't it make more sense for you to define "subjective" since it was you who used the word initially????

You said...
By extant historical experience (mine and others') and by my own subjective sense of right and wrong.

Zakath
June 26th, 2002, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Knight Why should I define a word that you used to describe your world view? Wouldn't it make more sense for you to define "subjective" since it was you who used the word initially????

Because you stated that you do not think we use the word the same way...

Apparently we have a different idea of what "subjective" means.

If you've got a variant meaning differing from the standard dictionary definition, let's hear it, otherwise drop it and see if you can provide some evidence of your, much touted, "moral asolutes".

Failing that, pack it in fella, you're firing blanks. ;)

Hank
June 28th, 2002, 11:18 AM
By Zak


I agree with your point to a limited extent. For many of the posters on this board, the "absolute" might be "the Bible" or "what the Bible says". The difficulty is getting them to agree, absolutely, on the second one...

That was exactly my point.

By Knight


However, it is far more relevant to determine if such a thing exists than it is to discuss its attributes.

I would disagree with you there Knight. To put it simply I would much rather have on this planet all Atheist who had "relative" morals that mainly encompassed doing unto others as you want them to do unto you than to have all devout religious people that had absolute morals of their way or the highway, or vice versa. But that's just me.


If absolutes exist, a god exists. If no god exists than there is nothing more to reality than atoms and molecules and atoms and molecules cannot be "evil" or "righteous". I think there is AMPLE evidence to suggest that moral absolutes do indeed exist and the vast majority of these absolutes are acknowledged by the vast majority of humans living and that have ever lived on this planet.

You mean like murder is absolutely wrong...... Yeah, but everyone has a different definition of murder. Everyone acknowledges them but no one agrees on what they are.

ClaypoolKid
July 6th, 2002, 12:42 PM
“I would suggest that the "right" and "wrong" of a law should be evaluated by its effects.”--- Zakath

Sorry Zakath, but by your standards alone this would be a completely unworkable method and does not provide any solutions. If you can’t determine the “right” or “wrong” of a law how could you determine the “right” or “wrong” of the effect? Laws implemented by the Nazis resulted in millions of dead Jews. For the Nazis this was the desired effect of the laws and thus they declared the laws “good”. (I hope you would not agree with this.) So with this evaluation method moral relativist are left with their tires spinning.

I also get a bit annoyed with how the vocabularies of liberals (a.k.a. moral relativist) seem to shrink when talking about morality. I think this discussion should be able to move forward without all the squabbles concerning the definitions of the words “right”, “wrong” and “absolute”. I am sure that Zakath and other liberals have used these words in other conversations many times without the confusion. We are talking about simple issues of right and wrong. There is nothing for you liberals to be scared of. Unless you have a fear of truth.

Goose
July 6th, 2002, 01:39 PM
Claypool,

:up: You get a cookie

Knight
July 6th, 2002, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by ClaypoolKid
“I would suggest that the "right" and "wrong" of a law should be evaluated by its effects.”--- Zakath

Sorry Zakath, but by your standards alone this would be a completely unworkable method and does not provide any solutions. If you can’t determine the “right” or “wrong” of a law how could you determine the “right” or “wrong” of the effect? Laws implemented by the Nazis resulted in millions of dead Jews. For the Nazis this was the desired effect of the laws and thus they declared the laws “good”. (I hope you would not agree with this.) So with this evaluation method moral relativist are left with their tires spinning.What a fantastic observation!

Zakath
July 6th, 2002, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by ClaypoolKid
?I would suggest that the "right" and "wrong" of a law should be evaluated by its effects.?--- Zakath

Sorry Zakath, but by your standards alone this would be a completely unworkable method and does not provide any solutions. If you can?t determine the ?right? or ?wrong? of a law how could you determine the ?right? or ?wrong? of the effect?
Governments make laws affecting many areas of life including those not directly "moral" or where "morality" is a bit fuzzy.

How about an illustration...
The state of New York has recently passed a law adding a large additional sales tax to packs of cigarettes raising the price to about $6.50 per pack. This law is percieved of as "good" by those who wish to reduce cigarette consumption, since it does reduce the number of packs sold and would boost state tax revenues.

What has actually occured is the development of a black market in cigarrettes from out of state. Since it is involving interstate commerce, the crime is (at least partially) federal. This will require the hiring of more staff by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (yes, those "jack booted thugs" of Waco fame) to police the illegal traffic. This will require the raising of federal taxes (or diversion of monies from other federal programs) to pay the costs. NY state troopers are now being diverted from other duties to run interdiction on the highways. The question is now being raised of how long before the gangs from the city get involved and we start having "turf wars" over territories for illegal cigarette sales, similar to those that exist for narcotics.

In addition, the decline of cigarette usage has lowered the projected revenues so the state did not make as much money as projected, resulting in a budget shortfall. This will require the state to raise general sales taxes to try to recoup the "lost" funds.

So the question is raised:

Is raising the tax on cigarettes "good" or "bad"?


Laws implemented by the Nazis resulted in millions of dead Jews. On the other side, it also forced millions of Jews to leave Europe and promoted the cause of Zionism and the founding of the Israeli state in 1948.


So with this evaluation method moral relativist are left with their tires spinning. Not really, what we are left with is the idea of relativism; that what is bad for one group may be good for another.


I also get a bit annoyed with how the vocabularies of liberals (a.k.a. moral relativist) seem to shrink when talking about morality.Example , please. Here on TOL, it's usually the religionists that are running around re-defining terms to suit their theories...


I think this discussion should be able to move forward without all the squabbles concerning the definitions of the words ?right?, ?wrong? and ?absolute?. I am sure that Zakath and other liberals have used these words in other conversations many times without the confusion.I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I use the terms "right" and "wrong" frequently. The issue, as I mentioned above is that the religionist side keeps shifting meanings. For example, I am unaware to which of the tens of thousands of religious sects in the world that you belong. One of the reasons those sects exist is because they see things differently. Were we to have any ongoing discussion I might ask you to define your terms to make certain we were both referring to similar ideas during the discussion.


We are talking about simple issues of right and wrong.That's where we disagree. The issues are very commonly, not simple at all.


There is nothing for you liberals to be scared of. Unless you have a fear of truth. I seem to sense a bit of malice dripping from that term "liberal". Firstly, I'm not really a liberal, I'm more of a libertarian. And secondly, I have no fear of actual truth when I am exposed to it. It's just that "absolute truth" gets lost in dispensationalism and other verbal sleight of hand when religionists use the term...

That's why I press for defintions. So all the parties involved have a common set of reference for the discussion.

Eireann
July 7th, 2002, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by Knight
[quote]Question #1
Can a government (ANY GOVERNMENT) pass or inact a law that is wrong?

Yes and no. To answer that entirely objectively, we need an entirely objective, universal, absolute definition of what is "wrong." That doesn't exist. There is no such definition that is agreed upon by all. So the best we can do is to say that a government can pass or inact a law that is wrong within the framework of understanding of the society for which that government operates. Likewise, a government can pass a law that is seen as perfectly acceptable within its own bailiwick, but is seen as wrong from other frameworks. It was perfectly acceptable to the forefathers of the United States to establish and enact laws that provided for punishment for thievery. However, whenever those laws were enforced upon some of the local Native American tribes, tribes who had no concept of ownership (and thus no concept of stealing) it was obviously viewed as a wrong sort of law.


Question #2
If a society (ANY SOCIETY) deems something socially acceptable, can the society be wrong?

It's relative, again, to the society. Underage drinking is acceptable in Amish society. To the Amish, it isn't wrong. However, that Amish society exists as a subset of a greater society, within which underage drinking is not only seen as wrong, but is regulated as a matter of law. It all depends on where you draw the boundaries of society.


Question #3
In a democracy, can the majority be wrong?

Again, it requires a definition of "wrong" that is objective within the society in question. And even then, it can only be defined as wrong within that society and within any society that shares that definition.

Eireann
July 7th, 2002, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by goose
It was "socially acceptable" to haul Jews off to be slaughtered in Nazi Germany. It was their opinion to do so. I'm also sure that's it's your opinion that this was wrong. How would we go about deciding who is more right, with no standard or authority to appeal to?

Bad example, goose. What is "socially acceptable" is generally a status quo, something that is agreed upon by the majority of the society. The extermination of the Jews in Nazi Germany was something that was opposed by the majority of German society; it was carried out by a minority who ruled by fear. German society allowed the travesty to occur out of fear for their own skins, fear of the punishment that the Nazis would visit upon them if they interfered. That doesn't mean they agreed with what was happening or that they thought it was right. Most didn't.

What is "socially acceptable" is not always what is done, and what is done is not always "socially acceptable," if those who are doing it have the power and the means to exploit that power. But history has shown again and again that when it is only the minority interest that is represented, they can only maintain power for so long. Eventually, the majority will either rebel or remove themselves to greener pastures. In the latter case, the social order changes more slowly over time, but it does change. Modern-day Cuba is a good example of that process in action. No government can stay in power for very long when it doesn't passify the majority. South Africa is a good example of that.

Eireann
July 7th, 2002, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by ClaypoolKid
“I would suggest that the "right" and "wrong" of a law should be evaluated by its effects.”--- Zakath

Sorry Zakath, but by your standards alone this would be a completely unworkable method and does not provide any solutions. If you can’t determine the “right” or “wrong” of a law how could you determine the “right” or “wrong” of the effect? Laws implemented by the Nazis resulted in millions of dead Jews. For the Nazis this was the desired effect of the laws and thus they declared the laws “good”. (I hope you would not agree with this.) So with this evaluation method moral relativist are left with their tires spinning.


Sorry, ClaypoolKid (I hope you're not referencing Les Claypool, because I would really hope a Primus fan would be able to argue better than this), but no wheels spinning here.

You hope to dance around the issue of objective morality by playing word games, which you hope will hide the fact that you really have no meritable argument in favor of absolute morality.

Let me make it simple for you: absolute morality means that the moral value in question is both shared and defined equally by everyone. Pay close attention to that word. everyone. Now if that is the case, if there is an absolute moral value out there in the moral universe, then when you speak of it from your point of view, you can accurate speak from the point of view of every ... single ... human ... being ... in ... the ... universe! Can you do that? Can you say with unequivocal certainty that any given moral value that you hold is viewed the same way by every single human being in the universe? If you can't, then your morality is not absolute. It is relative only to you and to those who share your view. Now, that relative group may be every human on the planet but one. It may even account for all the people on the planet (or any other planet, if there are others with life), but it doesn't account for those yet unborn, it doesn't account for any and all future interpretations. See, that's another property of an absolute morality -- it does not and cannot be changed, ever. If it's changeable, then it isn't absolute. An absolute morality is one that not only is universally and unanimously agreed upon now, but will always, throughout eternity, be universally and unanimously agreed upon.

See, absolute morality doesn't encompass the majority; it doesn't encompass 99.99999% of the people; it encompasses 100% of the people. Why? Because morals are dictated by society, and society is comprised of individuals, and all component members of a society must agree unanimously for an idea to be absolute within that society, and all societies must not only be absolute within their own mezocosms (my word; microcosm = individual, mezocosm = individual societies, macrocosm = collective of all societies), but must be in universal agreement in the macrocosm. Therefore, if even one human being does not share your value or definition, then your "absolute" does not exist.

What's that I hear? Is that the sound of ... why, yes, I believe it is ... moral absolutists spinning their wheels! Glory be!

ClaypoolKid
July 7th, 2002, 12:00 PM
“Governments make laws affecting many areas of life including those not directly "moral" or where "morality" is a bit fuzzy.”---Zakath

Zakath, what is your point? I completely agree. I would say that throughout history governments have proven time and time again that they are capable of making moral laws, immoral laws, and even A-moral laws. I doubt that many conservatives would disagree. So I hope that you did not take a long time to come up with the cigarette sales example because it was a waste of your time.

Then you go on to write what you think were the ‘good’ effects of Nazis laws.

“On the other side, it also forced millions of Jews to leave Europe and promoted the cause of Zionism and the founding of the Israeli state in 1948.”---Zakath

First, I would like to question whatever disgusting motives you had to list some ‘good’ that occurred after the Holocaust. These events were not ‘good’ effects of Nazi law. If Nazi law had continued to reign in Germany, ALL of the Jews would have been killed and there would have been none left to leave Europe. Thus, Zionism would have never occurred and Israel would have never been re-established. It was not Nazi law that allowed these things to occur. It was the END of Nazi law!

You then summarize your filthy words by saying:
“..what we are left with is the idea of relativism; that what is bad for one group may be good for another.”

So what your saying is that if a man rapes a woman it would be a ‘bad’ experience for her but it could be a ‘good’ experience for him and therefore we can’t declare the rape incident as morally ‘good’ or morally ‘bad’. Is this correct?

With that aside let me ask you this. Were the forcing of millions of Jews out of Europe, Zionism and the establishment of Israel ‘good’ things? Were they absolutely ‘good’ or is that just another meaningless statement by you? Once again, how can a moral relativist declare anything ‘good’ or ‘bad’?

Ok, now you want some examples of a liberal’s shrinking vocabularies here on TOL. All quotes are pulled from this thread.

1. “From my perspective, this depends mainly on the definition of "wrong."”—Zakath-- 06-20-2002 08:34 AM--- (You were the first to squabble about definitions on this very thread.)

2. “No, we've actually discussed my definition of wrong several times and you don't accept it as "relevant."--Zakath- 06-20-2002 06:43 PM (With this quote you basically admit to my point. YOU have your OWN definition of ‘wrong’? What don’t you like about the standard definition or how the word is generally used?)

3. “I press for definitions.”---Zakath--- 07-06-2002 02:46 PM (Again, you make my point for me.)

I was going to go through and search for more examples but these should be sufficent. I have had many debates with liberals in person and they always want to define terms. I think there must be some handbook titled ‘A Liberals Guide to Debating.’ (Page 1: “Whenever you find yourself loosing a debate obfuscate by asking for definition of words.”) Maybe knight or somebody who has been more involved in the forums here can provide more examples from TOL. This is only my 8th post.

One last quote from Zakath:

“I'm not really a LIBERal, I'm more of a LIBERtarian.”

???!!!???..Explain that one Zakath…???!!???

"It depends on what the defintion of 'is' is."-- Bill Clinton
P.S. Eireann, You next on my list… :o)

Eireann
July 7th, 2002, 12:40 PM
We've been discussing morals, but I think we've been using the wrong terms, especially when it comes to discussing right and wrong. See, morals don't deal with what is "right" or "wrong," they deal with what is "proper" or "improper," and what is "normal" or "abnormal." Right and wrong would be ethics, not morals.

Morals and morality are mechanisms to govern, regulate and facilitate the smooth and orderly interaction of members of a given society. Morals establish an acceptable code of behavior, but that code is relative to the society.

Morals consist of "mores" and "folkways"

Mores: formal rules, usually written down, that establish acceptable codes of behavior and provide a range of sanctions for following (reward) or breaking (punishment) the mores. Laws are an excellent example of mores.

Folkways: informal rules, unwritten, that are generally understood within a given society.

Mores can become folkways outside the society in question. For instance, in Amish society, the manner of dress, restriction of makeup on women, and abstinance from electricity and technology are mores. They are laws. They are written and strictly enforced, with set punishments (you can be kicked out for breaking these). But in the wider society, beyond the borders of Amish society, these things are viewed as folkways, because they don't exist as a part of our laws and mores. There are some ultraconservative women who refuse to wear cosmetics for a variety of reasons -- religious, activist, whatever -- but unless they are following a formal and written rule, it is a folkway moral.

Lets examine some more relative morals:

Here in the US, it is neither normal nor proper for a woman to go topless on a public beach. In some places this is a rigid more, a written law, and the offending woman can be arrested for it. In some states it exists only as a folkway, but is still widely recognized as improper behavior. It is "immoral" in American society for a woman to go to a public beach topless.

In France, however, it is socially acceptable. No such more or folkway exists that regulates a woman going topless at a public beach. It is not "immoral" in French society for a woman to go to a public beach topless. However, if a Frenchman were to look upon an American woman going topless at a French beach, he could look upon her as engaging in immoral behavior, if he knows that it is an immoral act among Americans, but he cannot judge a French woman the same way. He has to judge the person according to the morals of the society to which that person belongs, at least with folkways. With restrictive mores and folkways (those that define something as "socially unacceptable" as opposed to those that define something as "acceptable"), it's a little more complicated. If a French woman were to come to an American state where it is illegal to go topless on a public beach, she could be arrested for breaking the law. If she goes to a state where it isn't illegal, she can still be deemed immoral if she is aware of the local behavioral code. We are not only members of the society in which we reside, but we are at least temporarily members of the local society where we may be at any given moment. Thus, we are responsible to not significantly disrupt the lives of the local populace. If we go to Paris, we are responsible to follow, or at the very least, respect Parisian customs when we are aware of them, and Parisian laws at all times, whether those laws or customs are a part of American society or not.

Laws fall into the catagory of either moral law, ethical law, or fiscal law (and obviously we're not discussing fiscal law here). Moral law defines what is proper and improper behavior (e.g. public nudity is illegal), ethical law defines what is deemed right or wrong (e.g. murder is illegal).

So if you really want to discuss "right" and "wrong," we need to start a thread on ethics, and leave moral discussions to moral issues.

Projill
July 8th, 2002, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by ClaypoolKid
; that what is bad for one group may be good for another.”

So what your saying is that if a man rapes a woman it would be a ‘bad’ experience for her but it could be a ‘good’ experience for him and therefore we can’t declare the rape incident as morally ‘good’ or morally ‘bad’. Is this correct?



Ummm...you're resorting to highly emotive posting. I think Zak will be able to handle the rest of this post fine so I'll just respond to this point...seeing as how I am a woman and have experienced rape.

Morality, as has been brought up before by many people on this forum, is directly relative to the culture in which we live. Morally, in our society, we view rape as a "bad" thing. I think the western world is, for the most part, agreed on this point. However, there are places in the world where rape is considered a "normal" part of interrogating people in custody...not by law, per se, but in practice (I believe the term is "folkways".) Juvenile male prisoners sometimes wind up in adult prisons in certain areas of the world and they are treated as property by the prisoners (as well as many of the guards). Officially this doesn't happen, but behind closed doors it's not even shocking to those who live in those societies. Do I find these practices horrid? Of course! I'm a member of Amnesty International and what we do is try to put an end to inhumane treatment, human to human, around the world. But it's an uphill battle because these people have been brought up to think that this kind of treatment is okay.

It's perfectly acceptable to kill rape victims in some of our more religiously-fueled countries around the world. It's called an "honor crime" and the family's honor is more important than the woman's life. Do I find this terrible? Again, of course. But they see it as necessary.

Are you beginning to understand how the mores, folkways, and values of our culture influence our behavior? Do you understand how different standards invoke quite different and, as far as we can grasp it, outrageous and shocking behavior?

It's only by, through the generations, doing away with inhumane treatment of people in our own country that we've come as far as we have...and America's still far from being number one when it comes to being humane. Our very own country is little more than a hundred some odd years away from a time when we considered subjecting whole races into slavery as perfectly acceptable (even promoted by preachers from their pulpits at the time.)

You might not like the idea of moral relativism...but think about what you might consider to be moral or immoral if you had been born a mere one hundred fifty years ago.

Zakath
July 8th, 2002, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by ClaypoolKid
“Governments make laws affecting many areas of life including those not directly "moral" or where "morality" is a bit fuzzy.”---Zakath

Zakath, what is your point? I completely agree. It's nice to see we agree on something before you launch into the rest of your post, (or should I say "tirade")...


I would say that throughout history governments have proven time and time again that they are capable of making moral laws, immoral laws, and even A-moral laws. I doubt that many conservatives would disagree. So I hope that you did not take a long time to come up with the cigarette sales example because it was a waste of your time.If it made my point, it's not a waste time. :)


Then you go on to write what you think were the ‘good’ effects of Nazis laws.

“On the other side, it also forced millions of Jews to leave Europe and promoted the cause of Zionism and the founding of the Israeli state in 1948.”---Zakath

First, I would like to question whatever disgusting motives you had to list some ‘good’ that occurred after the Holocaust. These events were not ‘good’ effects of Nazi law. If Nazi law had continued to reign in Germany, ALL of the Jews would have been killed and there would have been none left to leave Europe. Thus, Zionism would have never occurred and Israel would have never been re-established. It was not Nazi law that allowed these things to occur. I was the END of Nazi law!A bit touchy there, eh Claypool! Does your hatred for Nazi's extend to the individual party members as well? It's good that I do not feel similarly about the evils perpetrated by Christians throughout the centuries..

Of course, the dead did not go to Israel, only the escapees, many from Britain. They were forced to emigrate and the Brits were forced to come up with a solution because of German aggression.

Was this a benefit for Zionism? Certainly.

What do you mean by your rather cryptic commeint that you were "the END of Nazi law"?


You then summarize your filthy words by saying:
“..what we are left with is the idea of relativism; that what is bad for one group may be good for another.”

So what your saying is that if a man rapes a woman it would be a ‘bad’ experience for her but it could be a ‘good’ experience for him and therefore we can’t declare the rape incident as morally ‘good’ or morally ‘bad’. Is this correct?No, once again your emotionalism causes you to miss the point.

The point of this argument has always been that I do not believe in absolute morality. Humans can always, it seems, find some way to illustrate depraved behavior. If find it curious how frequently the allegedly "Christian" posters on this site jump to deviant sexual behavior to justify their points. I wonder why the fixation with raping women? :confused:


With that aside let me ask you this. Were the forcing of millions of Jews out of Europe, Zionism and the establishment of Israel ‘good’ things? Forcing Jews out of Europe, good for those who disliked and hated them, bad for Jews, .
Zionism, good for Israel, bad for the Palestinians.
Establisment of Israel, good for Jews, bad for Palestinians.


Were they absolutely ‘good’ or is that just another meaningless statement by you? See my preceding comments about not accepting the concept of "absolute" morality.


Once again, how can a moral relativist declare anything ‘good’ or ‘bad’? In short, by experience and the rules of the society in which they have been raised.


Ok, now you want some examples of a liberal’s shrinking vocabularies here on TOL. All quotes are pulled from this thread... snipped examples...I was going to go through and search for more examples but these should be sufficent...This is only my 8th post. Since you're new here, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are merely ignorant, and not as obnoxious as you sound. The person I was discussing this with (not you, BTW) is infamous, on this board, for playing verbal gymnastics with the meanings of words..


I have had many debates with liberals in person and they always want to define terms. I think there must be some handbook titled ‘A Liberals Guide to Debating.’ (Page 1: “Whenever you find yourself loosing a debate obfuscate by asking for definition of words.”)If you are as experienced a debator as you try to present yourself then you know the answer to your own question and are merely baiting me.

As your own post points out, your debate opponents were attempting to clarify the meaning of the terms you were using while you were so intent on drubbing them that you ignored the reason for the clarification. It's called "communication", claypoolkid. In your youthful enthusiasm (my youngest kids are about your age), you missed the fact that your opponents were seeking to communicate with you and chalked up their attempts at understanding as some nefarious liberal consipracy. :rolleyes:


One last quote from Zakath:

“I'm not really a LIBERal, I'm more of a LIBERtarian.”

???!!!???..Explain that one Zakath…???!!???
To answer your question, try using a dictionary to research the difference between the definitions of "liberal" and "libertarian".

Eireann
July 8th, 2002, 01:23 PM
What do you mean by your rather cryptic commeint that you were "the END of Nazi law"?

I think that was probably a typo, meant to read "It was the END of Nazi law." Am I right?

Zakath
July 8th, 2002, 02:12 PM
Good thought! After rereading it, that makes sense.

Pilgrimagain
July 10th, 2002, 11:58 AM
it seems that the basic argument for moral relativism rests on the idea that we can not know everything. Is that correct?

Eireann
July 10th, 2002, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
it seems that the basic argument for moral relativism rests on the idea that we can not know everything. Is that correct?
Basically. First, there is the idea that we cannot know everything. Second is the idea that we cannot speak for everyone when we define our values (and if any moral value were absolute, then we could necessarily speak for any and all rational beings). Third is the idea that any absolute must necessarily be immutable from past to present to future. There cannot be even the slightest alteration in the imperitives of that moral. Last, but not least, is the idea that for something to be morally absolute, it would almost certainly need to be tied together by something that is big enough and powerful enough to unite the thinking of any and all rational beings (in other words, it would require God's hand) -- yet, though many of us believe in such a power, we have no real proof of its existence, so we cannot call anything absolute when we cannot even prove the existence of the one thing that would be capable of enforcing an objective absolute.

Zakath
July 10th, 2002, 12:17 PM
Succinctly stated, Eireann.

Though I'd have to say from an atheistic viewpoint, the 'big and powerful something' would have to be some sort of natural force (maybe the human genome in the case of morals) common to all affected or under the sway of the absolute.

Eireann
July 10th, 2002, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
Succinctly stated, Eireann.

Though I'd have to say from an atheistic viewpoint, the 'big and powerful something' would have to be some sort of natural force (maybe the human genome in the case of morals) common to all affected or under the sway of the absolute.
True. Yet even though we know there is a human genome, there would still remain the task of proving it capable of such a uniformly binding function.

Zakath
July 10th, 2002, 12:49 PM
My head hurts even thinking about trying to devise an experiment to test that kind of hypothesis... :(

Pilgrimagain
July 10th, 2002, 01:04 PM
But here is the thing, I can know everything about SOME things. the fact that I can not know everything about all things does not prevent me (or society) from making absolute statments (or judgements) about some things.

Zakath
July 10th, 2002, 01:17 PM
Yet, as an atheist, I am frequently beaten about the head and and shoulders (at least on this board) with the argument Eireann has raised as the reason that I cannot say there is not a deity.

What's sauce for the goose...

Goose
July 10th, 2002, 06:23 PM
How could a theist prove to you that God exists if you aren't 100% sure that you yourself exists?

Eireann
July 10th, 2002, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
But here is the thing, I can know everything about SOME things. the fact that I can not know everything about all things does not prevent me (or society) from making absolute statments (or judgements) about some things.
People can, and often do make what seem to be absolute statements and/or judgements about some things, but that seemingness doesn't make them absolute. I don't believe that anyone can know everything about anything. There is always some new thing to learn about even the smallest matters.

ClaypoolKid
July 20th, 2002, 08:32 AM
Sorry about the typo and thanks for the correction Projill. Of all the letters for me to miss that ‘t’ might have been the most crucial.

"The state of New York has recently passed a law adding a large additional sales tax to packs of cigarettes raising the price to about $6.50 per pack. This law is percieved of as "good" by those who wish to reduce cigarette consumption, since it does reduce the number of packs sold and would boost state tax revenues."-Zakath

"It's perfectly acceptable to kill rape victims in some of our more religiously-fueled countries around the world. It's called an "honor crime" and the family's honor is more important than the woman's life. Do I find this terrible? Again, of course. But they see it as necessary."-Projill

"It's relative, again, to the society. Underage drinking is acceptable in Amish society. To the Amish, it isn't wrong. However, that Amish society exists as a subset of a greater society, within which underage drinking is not only seen as wrong, but is regulated as a matter of law. It all depends on where you draw the boundaries of society."-Eireann
It seems that the moral relativist who are participating in this thread are approaching the discussion in the same manner. However, I am not sure what they are attempting to do. I am completely aware that different societies adhere to different moral codes. Different societies will implement different laws and practice different behaviors. These observations are not in question.

Knight asked:
Question #1: Can a government (ANY GOVERNMENT) pass or inact a law that is wrong?
Question #2: If a society (ANY SOCIETY) deems something socially acceptable, can the society be wrong?

He did not ask if government and societies could have contradicting laws or contradicting practices. But rather, can these laws or practices be wrong. Can a government (which is the supposed highest authority of the land) enact a law that is wrong? If so, then the government must not be the highest authority of the land and there must be an even higher authority of which the government is subject to. What is the source of this authority that is above the government? If there is no authority that overshadows the authority of the government, then a government, including the Nazi government, can do no wrong.

"Let me make it simple for you: absolute morality means that the moral value in question is both shared and defined equally by everyone."----Eireann
I don't think that is a very accurate portrayal of what we are debating. Obviously this is not what we theist believe or there would be no debate. Many cultures, both past and present, have not shared or defined their moral values the way present day Americans might. I do not know any theist who would claim that there is a morality that is both "shared and defined equally by everyone." We would say that there is a moral code that SHOULD be shared and defined equally by everyone. We would say that there are certain behaviors that SHOULD be discouraged and declared illegal 100% of the time.


But here is the thing, I can know everything about SOME things. the fact that I can not know everything about all things does not prevent me (or society) from making absolute statments (or judgements) about some things.---- Pilgrimagain
Thanks for the input Pilgrim. I like your insight and I agree.

"I'm a member of Amnesty International and what we do is try to put an end to inhumane treatment, human to human, around the world. But it's an uphill battle because these people have been brought up to think that this kind of treatment is okay."--- Projill
Projill, how do you define what is ‘inhumane treatment’? Can you give me an example of an “inhumane treatment”? If there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong then your battle is not only ‘uphill’, it is also futile.

Does your hatred for Nazi's extend to the individual party members as well?---Zakath
Well, I never used the word ‘hate.’ (Although it could be fitting.)But whatever feeling I have for the Nazi party I would also have for the Nazi individuals. Just because the individuals were doing what they were ordered to do does not make it right.

"It's good that I do not feel similarly about the evils perpetrated by Christians throughout the centuries.."-Zakath

Well you should. There have been Christians who have done some pretty evil things. But are you sure that what they did was “evil”? What do you mean by ‘evil’? Can you give me an example of one of these ‘evil’ acts?

Oh, and Zakath... The Libertarian party is very liberal. This is clear to any conservative who knows the party’s stance on issues like drugs, abortion, prostitution and pornography.

Parting question:
Is there an authority higher than a nation's Government? If so, what is that authority? If not, then on what ground can we criticize the laws of any government?

Zakath
July 20th, 2002, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by ClaypoolKid
...There have been Christians who have done some pretty evil things. But are you sure that what they did was “evil”? What do you mean by ‘evil’? Can you give me an example of one of these ‘evil’ acts? If you consider Martin Luther a Christian, how about his anti-semetic diatribes, preached from Lutheran pulpits for decades... The Jews and their Lies (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/1543-Luther-JewsandLies-full.html)? Such rabid hatred by the church hierarchy merely reflected the thinking of the common people. It eventually found physical expression in the Holocaust.


Parting question:
Is there an authority higher than a nation's Government? If so, what is that authority? If not, then on what ground can we criticize the laws of any government? In the country in which I live, the will of the people, as expressed through the democratic republican process, is the highest authority. It isn't expressed perfectly, but we manage to muddle through most decades... ;)

Eireann
July 20th, 2002, 03:19 PM
originally posted by Claypoolkid
I don't think that is a very accurate portrayal of what we are debating. Obviously this is not what we theist believe or there would be no debate. Many cultures, both past and present, have not shared or defined their moral values the way present day Americans might. I do not know any theist who would claim that there is a morality that is both "shared and defined equally by everyone." We would say that there is a moral code that SHOULD be shared and defined equally by everyone. We would say that there are certain behaviors that SHOULD be discouraged and declared illegal 100% of the time.
What SHOULd be shared and defined equally by everyone, and what SHOULD be discouraged and declared illegal 100% of the time I agree would amount to a moral absolute. But what exactly is it that determines just what should be universally so treated? God? That would certainly be the theists' argument, but lacking proof of God, you are left with nothing more than a guess that there is such an absolute. The relativist's case is observable while the absolutist's case is merely conceptual.

ClaypoolKid
July 20th, 2002, 03:39 PM
If you consider Martin Luther a Christian, how about his anti-semetic diatribes, preached from Lutheran pulpits for decades... The Jews and their Lies? Such rabid hatred by the church hierarchy merely reflected the thinking of the common people. It eventually found physical expression in the Holocaust.---Zakath
Yes Zakath, I am aware of Martin Luther's anti-Semitism and I find it disturbing as well. But what I want to know is: Was it wrong for Luther and the common people to have this "rabid hatred" for the Jews? I find it puzzling that you deny the existence of absolute morality but yet you so eagerly point out the "evils" committed by people. (You used the word 'evils' in your previous post.)

In the country in which I live, the will of the people, as expressed through the democratic republican process, is the highest authority.---Zakath
I also see a conflict with how you criticize the "thinking of the common people" during the time of Luther yet you seem at ease with the present day democratic republican process. If “the will of the people” is the “highest authority” then by what authority do you criticize the “rabid hatred’ of Jews during the time of Luther? Wasn’t oppression against Jews a part of “the will of the people” at that time? Is the will of the people really the highest authority?

If 10 years from now our democratic republic re-legalizes slavery will you speak out against it? If so, what will you say? What grounds would you have to criticize 'the will of the people' which is the 'highest authority' of the land? Your authority could not be higher than the highest authority.

ClaypoolKid
July 20th, 2002, 04:06 PM
Eireann,

Right now I am not trying to prove the existence of absolute morality. For now I am just trying to point out the conflicting ideas of moral relativist who think they can have a foundation for any level of morality without submitting to the idea of absolutes.

I am not saying that moral relativist ignore all moral code. People can live with certain moral standards without having any foundation for their standards.

Goose
July 20th, 2002, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Eireann
The relativist's case is observable while the absolutist's case is merely conceptual. How is this observed?

Dana Scully
July 20th, 2002, 04:33 PM
Claypool,

I admire your logical approach. Keep their feet to the fire!

Dana

Zakath
July 20th, 2002, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by ClaypoolKid

Yes Zakath, I am aware of Martin Luther's anti-Semitism and I find it disturbing as well. But you'll continue to support his religion?


But what I want to know is: Was it wrong for Luther and the common people to have this "rabid hatred" for the Jews?IMO, yes. The Jews had done nothing to injure most Germans. There is no reason, other than bigotry and religious rabble rousing, for most Germans to hate Jews.


I find it puzzling that you deny the existence of absolute morality but yet you so eagerly point out the "evils" committed by people. (You used the word 'evils' in your previous post.)I used the word, and defined it several times in previous posts as well.


I also see a conflict with how you criticize the "thinking of the common people" during the time of Luther yet you seem at ease with the present day democratic republican process. Where is the conflict? I live in a democratic republic. In Luther's day there was little democratic process. Germany was ruled by a group of hereditary nobility.


If “the will of the people” is the “highest authority” then by what authority do you criticize the “rabid hatred’ of Jews during the time of Luther?To ask such a question, you are obviously not as conversant with Luther's history as you implied. Luther not only hated the Jews when they refused to convert to his brand of Christianity, he petitioned the German princes to seize their property, burn their synagogues, and drive them with scourging, homeless and penniless from German soil.

The authority I appeal to is basic human dignity and care for the welfare of my fellow man.


Wasn’t oppression against Jews a part of “the will of the people” at that time? Only after being stirred by zealots like Luther preaching divine sanction and blessings for those who would opress the Jews.


Is the will of the people really the highest authority? In the context of a democratic republic, yes.


If 10 years from now our democratic republic re-legalizes slavery will you speak out against it? If so, what will you say? Yes, I believe that slavery is wrong because it victimizes my fellow humans, causing them to be treated as chattel. I would speak against it, even though the governments and Christian churches have supported owning of slaves and the slave trade throughout centuries.

How about you ClaypoolKid? Would you oppose human slavery? If so, on what grounds?


What grounds would you have to criticize 'the will of the people' which is the 'highest authority' of the land? Your authority could not be higher than the highest authority. Of course my authority cannot exceed that of the electorate. I am merely one of the people, but I have some rights (until some administration or other removes them in the interest of "national security" ;)) to speak my mind on subjects. No one is required to act on what I say or even to listen, but I have the right to speak...

That's the way it works in this country, at least at present.

Pilgrimagain
July 20th, 2002, 10:46 PM
YOu appeal to basic human dignity but why is that the highest authority? Is it a gut feeling for you or is it just realative?

Goose
July 20th, 2002, 10:53 PM
The authority I appeal to is basic human dignity and care for the welfare of my fellow man.Ancient Indians thought it the dignified thing to do to where the human skin of a sacrificed virgin as a coat. I'm sure you don't. How would you figure out who is right or wrong?

Zakath
July 21st, 2002, 08:30 AM
Probably the same way you would, goose. Through the lenses of the culture in which I was raised. In my culture such things are wrong. Aren't they in yours?

If you want to play "why and why not" games, how about getting your "mind of Christ" to answer a few simple moral questions for me?

Christians in the dark ages used to torture and kill suspected witches. Do you consider that biblically-based practice wrong? If so, why?

Ancient Christians used to "sell all that they had" and bring the proceeds to the church to be distributed by the elders. Do you follow such practices? If not, why not?

Christians kept humans as slaves as recently as 150 years ago in the United States. They claimed biblical justification for doing so. Do you consider the practice of human slavery wrong? If so, why?

Do you consider attempting to stop the practice of abortion by bombing an abortion clinic or threatening abortionists with physical harm or death wrong? If so why? If not, why not?

Goose
July 21st, 2002, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Zakath
Probably the same way you would, goose. Through the lenses of the culture in which I was raised. In my culture such things are wrong. Aren't they in yours?No. Actually, my morals are totally different then my culture. My culture is pro-choice. They like to go out and party on Friday-Sunday. They like to have sex without marriage. They like to get divorced. They hate God. This is NOT how you get your morality Zakath. Are there things that are wrong, and things that are right Zakath?


If you want to play "why and why not" games, how about getting your "mind of Christ" to answer a few simple moral questions for me?

Christians in the dark ages used to torture and kill suspected witches. Do you consider that biblically-based practice wrong? If so, why?Maybe they weren't really Christians. If you think everyone who calls themselves a Christian, is a Christian, think again Zakath. Do you think everyone who calls themselves an atheist, is really an atheist? You're not too bright are you. Use your brain.

Ancient Christians used to "sell all that they had" and bring the proceeds to the church to be distributed by the elders. Do you follow such practices? If not, why not?I live under the dispensation of Grace, not works. You have a moot point here, since you don't know much about that. I thought you were a pastor? Why is your bible knowledge so poor?


Christians kept humans as slaves as recently as 150 years ago in the United States. They claimed biblical justification for doing so. Do you consider the practice of human slavery wrong? If so, why?In the American sense of slavery, it was wrong. Capturing and selling and what not. But I don't see why indentured servitude(as in the bible) would be a bad thing.


Do you consider attempting to stop the practice of abortion by bombing an abortion clinic or threatening abortionists with physical harm or death wrong? If so why? If not, why not?
I've never thought that through enough. But I do know that there are less abortionists because they don't want to be bothered like that. I'm all for pro-life rallies. I'm not too hip about usurping God's authority outside of the government. It's the government's job to execute murderers.

Zakath
July 21st, 2002, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Goose
No. Actually, my morals are totally different then my culture. My culture is pro-choice. They like to go out and party on Friday-Sunday. They like to have sex without marriage. They like to get divorced. They hate God. This is NOT how you get your morality Zakath. Are there things that are wrong, and things that are right Zakath?Oh really? Upon what do you base these morals that are totally different from society, goose?


If you think everyone who calls themselves a Christian, is a Christian, think again Zakath.(snipped meaningless ad hominem) Actually, I wonder whether you would actually qualify. Just remember, "not every one who calls themselves a Christian..."

I live under the dispensation of Grace, not works. You have a moot point here... (snipped meaningless ad hominem)No I have a valid point that you are dodging. Are you insinuating that the Christians in apostolic times did not live under this "dispensation of grace"? Why don't you try actually reading your bible and see if you can explain why they are different from you...


In the American sense of slavery, it was wrong. Capturing and selling and what not. But I don't see why indentured servitude(as in the bible) would be a bad thing.You've only answered half the question... Indentured servitude is not the slavery at issue, that only applied biblically to Jews, not foreigners. Conquered peoples were captured, bought and sold, they were just plain slaves for life...

Why do you believe that biblical slavery is right?


I've never thought that through enough.That's not surprising. It can lead you to some very uncomfortable positions.


But I do know that there are less abortionists because they don't want to be bothered like that. And there are fewer interracial marriages in the south because they used to hang blacks. What's your point, that threatening people with mayhem and death is right because the end justifies the means?


I'm all for pro-life rallies. I'm not too hip about usurping God's authority outside of the government. It's the government's job to execute murderers. But according to the government, abortionists who work in legally licensed facilities are not murderers. It's only you antiabortion types who tag them with that title.

Your attitude appears to be a cop out to avoid having to set yourself against the government. If churches ever actually acted on the convictions of their beliefs, they'd be shut down in a matter of weeks. They are too fat and protective of their property, plunder, and privilege to dare to upset the status quo.

You say your morals are different from society but I don't see it as being so. So show me that I am wrong here, goose. Show me that you are not just another relgious bigot, hiding behind their bible to criticize those they don't agree with but never taking action.

Goose
July 21st, 2002, 02:21 PM
Isaiah 5:20 "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Originally posted by Zakath
Oh really? Upon what do you base these morals that are totally different from society, goose?You really aren't very bright, are you. I'm a Christian. It would be a best to assume that I get my morals from biblical teaching and prayer. I thought you were a Christian once Zakath?

Actually, I wonder whether you would actually qualify. Just remember, "not every one who calls themselves a Christian..."You wouldn't have any basis to judge, even if you thought this to be true.

No I have a valid point that you are dodging. Are you insinuating that the Christians in apostolic times did not live under this "dispensation of grace"? Why don't you try actually reading your bible and see if you can explain why they are different from you...Peter and Paul taught different Gospels. Everyone knows this, Zakath.

Gal 2:7 "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;"

Peter's disciples were waiting for Jesus to return very soon. But Jesus didn't. So, they starved and were poor. Paul's disciples actually had to help support them.

I'd suggest you stay away from questioning the Bible, as you have a hard enough time discerning right from wrong.

You've only answered half the question... Indentured servitude is not the slavery at issue, that only applied biblically to Jews, not foreigners. Conquered peoples were captured, bought and sold, they were just plain slaves for life...God doesn't care if you're Jew or foreigner. He cares about right and wrong, Zakath. Something your discernment lacks.

Why do you believe that biblical slavery is right?I'm not sure, but I would assume that the servant didn't have enough to pay what he was in debt for. Therefore, he loaned himself. The servant had to be released after 7 years.

And there are fewer interracial marriages in the south because they used to hang blacks. What's your point, that threatening people with mayhem and death is right because the end justifies the means?It's ok to use fear and wrath, as long as what you're up against is evil. Something you have no say in, Zakath, because you lack discernment and the wisdom to see what is right and wrong.

But according to the government, abortionists who work in legally licensed facilities are not murderers. It's only you antiabortion types who tag them with that title. What a hypocrite you are Zakath. You go around telling me I'm wrong, with absolutelty no basis(that you can admit to) for your claims. You say that your morality is defines by society. So when society says that slavery is right, say in the Sudan, you would have to agree that it is right. But here in the US, it is abolished. Yet a couple paragraphs ago, you attack me having a biblical view of slavery! On what grounds!?!?! You hypocrite!

Your attitude appears to be a cop out to avoid having to set yourself against the government. If churches ever actually acted on the convictions of their beliefs, they'd be shut down in a matter of weeks. They are too fat and protective of their property, plunder, and privilege to dare to upset the status quo.God gave churches and government different authority, Zakath. Something you wouldn't understand.

You say your morals are different from society but I don't see it as being so. So show me that I am wrong here, goose. Show me that you are not just another relgious bigot, hiding behind their bible to criticize those they don't agree with but never taking action. Show me you're not some kind of hypocrite! YOu're evil! You would call sweet things bitter, and bitter things sweet, as long as society defined them for you, you fool! You're a tool of society! How does it feel, Zakath!?!?

Isaiah 5:20 "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Zakath
July 21st, 2002, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Goose
(snipped first ad hominem) I'm a Christian. It would be a best to assume that I get my morals from biblical teaching and prayer. I'm an atheist, not a mind reader. Everytime I assume something about you religionists, it turns out to be untrue sometime down the road...

You claim to be a Christian. But you do not attend any local church on a regular basis. By your own statement, you're some kind of 22 year old "lone ranger" who is so full of pride in his allegedly superior knowledge that he doesn't even need fellowship with an organized church. How do I know what kinds of twisted interpretations your spinning yourself out of whatever Bible translation happens to be your favorite this year.

You wouldn't have any basis to judge, even if you thought this to be true.
Peter and Paul taught different Gospels. Everyone knows this, Zakath. <snipped open view sermonette...>So everyone knows this, eh? Now that's enlightening. Perhaps you should tell the folks that have been arguing about it over in the Dispensationalism forum since last October! Unfortunately, Paul didn't think there were separate gospels. Different audiences, but one gospel, and that anything else was false doctrine..."But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! " Gal 1:8

Peter and Paul preached the same gospel but to different audiences.


I'd suggest you stay away from questioning the Bible, as you have a hard enough time discerning right from wrong.So we humans are to seek but not question, eh goose? Questioning appears to be dangerous for people like you. You react very poorly when someone poses a few...


God doesn't care if you're Jew or foreigner. He cares about right and wrong, Zakath. No, actually your god cares about that, goose. The problem is, it's difficult to put 20 Christians in a room and come up with a consistent idea of just what is right or wrong in many real-life circumstances.


I'm not sure...<snipped goose's ignorance>
For someone who claims not to know what he's talking about, you sure have a lot to say. :rolleyes:


It's ok to use fear and wrath, as long as what you're up against is evil. Something you have no say in, Zakath, because you lack discernment and the wisdom to see what is right and wrong. So you believe it is morally right to burn or bomb abortion clinics? To threaten abortionists? To threaten clinic workers? To kill abortionists and clinic staff? Where do you draw the line?

"For God did not give us a spirit of fear..."


What a hypocrite you are Zakath. You go around telling me I'm wrong, with absolutelty no basis(that you can admit to) for your claims.No I'm not a hypocrite, goose. I'm an atheist. You're the hypcrite, claiming to be able to tell me right from wrong by reading the mind of your deity, while writing "I'm not sure", and "I haven't thought about that"...


You say that your morality is defines by society. So when society says that slavery is right, say in the Sudan, you would have to agree that it is right.But I'm not Sudanese, goose. I'm an American.


But here in the US, it is abolished. Yet a couple paragraphs ago, you attack me having a biblical view of slavery! On what grounds!?!?! Because you claim to be a bible believing Christian. Or have you changed your mind again...


You really aren't very bright ... What a hypocrite you are ... hypocrite!...YOu're evil!...you fool!... you wouldn't understand ...You're a tool...<snipped the rest of goose's rant>
Goose, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

You are so double-minded and conflicted about what you claim to believe, that you cannot even carry on a coherent discussion without resorting to name calling...

If you can't even keep your temper on a silly little web site like this one, you appear to need further study and maturity before you try apologetics...

cirisme
July 21st, 2002, 04:58 PM
You claim to be a Christian. But you do not attend any local church on a regular basis.

Chapter and verse, please, where it says that to be a Christian you must regularly attend oganized churches. The concept we have of church today is much different than that of the Bible's.


The problem is, it's difficult to put 20 "Christians" in a room and come up with a consistent idea of just what is right or wrong in many real-life circumstances.

Pathetic, really.


So you believe it is morally right to burn or bomb abortion clinics? To threaten abortionists? To threaten clinic workers? To kill abortionists and clinic staff? Where do you draw the line?

I believe in submitting to authority.


No I'm not a hypocrite, goose. I'm an atheist.

Reminds me when Gore said, "I'm not the problem. I'm a democrat." :p


But I'm not Sudanese, goose. I'm an American.

Well, duh! But you believe that morals are relative to each society, don't you? The Sudanese society says slavery is just fine, the American society says it is horrible. Which society is right, ours or theirs?

Eireann
July 21st, 2002, 06:24 PM
originally posted by goose
You really aren't very bright, are you. I'm a Christian. It would be a best to assume that I get my morals from biblical teaching and prayer. I thought you were a Christian once Zakath?
You might assume that it would be best to assume that, because it is a comfortable position for you, but it is much more likely that your morals are informed by that particular culture or society -- the culture of Christians who share your belief and interpretation. Culture can mean many things. The culture you described in an earlier post is more of a macroculture, but you belong to more cultures than just that one. The people who follow the same religion as you form another culture, another society, and that is where many of your morals stem from. Think about it -- you said that you are a relatively new Christian, I believe? The morals that you have now -- did you suddenly adopt all of them only when you became a Christian and started reading the Bible and praying, or did you, as I suspect, hold a good number of them even before? How much contact did you have with Christians -- friends, family, acquaintances -- before you claimed the title yourself? Would it be too much of a stretch to guess that you probably picked up a lot of your moral values from those people even before you yourself claimed to be one of them?

Eireann
July 21st, 2002, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by cirisme
Well, duh! But you believe that morals are relative to each society, don't you? The Sudanese society says slavery is just fine, the American society says it is horrible. Which society is right, ours or theirs?
I think you're either misunderstanding or oversimplifying the relativist position. We don't say that you can't claim something is right or wrong. We say that you can't judge something as "absolutely" right or wrong. What we consider wrong is defined by the culture(s) and society(ies) that we live in, so if we live in a society that considers slavery wrong, naturally we are going to consider it wrong in any circumstance. But that is not the same as saying that it is absolutely wrong. Calling something "absolutely wrong" requires being able to justify a source of that absolute. That comes back to the same problem of being able to prove the existence of that source (i.e. God, etc.).

"Wrong" and "absolutely wrong" may be quantitatively the same, but they are qualitatively different.

Zakath
July 21st, 2002, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by cirisme
Chapter and verse, please, where it says that to be a Christian you must regularly attend oganized churches. The concept we have of church today is much different than that of the Bible's. Paul felt strongly enough about "lone rangers" to speak out against it... "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching. " Heb. 10:25

IIRC, Agustine was the one who summarized it with his "apart from the Church there is no salvation."

Wouldn't you expect the concept to evolve after twenty centuries?


I believe in submitting to authority.The point of the question is when does allegedly divine authority supercede civil authority?


Well, duh! But you believe that morals are relative to each society, don't you? The Sudanese society says slavery is just fine, the American society says it is horrible. Which society is right, ours or theirs? Why must either one be more right or wrong than the other? Slavery is wrong and unacceptable for Americans and acceptable for Sudanese. One hundred and fifty, or so, years ago, we would have been in agreement while the Southern Baptists were thundering biblical support of slavery from their pulpits. Were the baptists wrong all those years? Who's to say...

Prostitution is acceptabe for Nevadans and wrong for Californians, who's right?

Abortion is right in the United States and wrong in Iran; whose society is right, the Muslims of Iran or the allegedly "Christian" nation of the U.S.?

Comparative social morality provides some interesting conundrums...

Goose
July 21st, 2002, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
You claim to be a Christian. But you do not attend any local church on a regular basis. By your own statement, you're some kind of 22 year old "lone ranger" who is so full of pride in his allegedly superior knowledge that he doesn't even need fellowship with an organized church.I'm still settling in South Bend, and I might be moving, whenever this temp job ends. I don't have a church here.

How do I know what kinds of twisted interpretations your spinning yourself out of whatever Bible translation happens to be your favorite this year.Well, being an atheist, you wouldn't ever know absolutely, since it takes a spirit of discernment to discern spiritual matters.

So everyone knows this, eh? Now that's enlightening. Perhaps you should tell the folks that have been arguing about it over in the Dispensationalism forum since last October! Unfortunately, Paul didn't think there were separate gospels. Different audiences, but one gospel, and that anything else was false doctrine..."But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! " Gal 1:8There were different gospels but only one Gospel, which was the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ preached the Gospel of the Kingdom. Different messages to different people, with the same goal. A vessel for honor and a vessel for dishonor.

So we humans are to seek but not question, eh goose? Questioning appears to be dangerous for people like you. You react very poorly when someone poses a few...I don't react well with people who deny God. don't know where you atheists come up with your "holier than thou" stuff, where you think you're better or smarter than others. Some of the best minds in the world are christians, as well as famous scientists.

No, actually your god cares about that, goose. The problem is, it's difficult to put 20 Christians in a room and come up with a consistent idea of just what is right or wrong in many real-life circumstances.Real life circumstances? Like what? Deciding to have an abortion or not? Usually, everyday choices aren't questions of morality, personally. For a good Christian, it's usually common sense. For a relativist, they go on their feelings and evolutionary philosophy of "the strongest wins and therefore sets the morality".

For someone who claims not to know what he's talking about, you sure have a lot to say. :rolleyes:Maybe because I try to be honest with myself.

So you believe it is morally right to burn or bomb abortion clinics? To threaten abortionists? To threaten clinic workers? To kill abortionists and clinic staff? Where do you draw the line?I don't do these things, nor have a thought about doing them. I'd suggest you read Romans 13.

"For God did not give us a spirit of fear..."Amen!
Rom 13:3 "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:"

No I'm not a hypocrite, goose. I'm an atheist. You're the hypcrite, claiming to be able to tell me right from wrong by reading the mind of your deity, while writing "I'm not sure", and "I haven't thought about that"...You don't even know what the Mind of Christ means! LOL Yet you call me a hypocrite. "Survival of the Fittest", yet you use abortion clinic bombings as an argument. "I'm my own moral authority" is what relativists preach, yet they don't respect anyone elses but they're own.

But I'm not Sudanese, goose. I'm an American.I know! But what if you moved over there. Does it become morally right to have boy slaves all of the sudden? Would this take effect when you got on the plane, off the plane, cross time zones, etc???

Goose, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.Are you making a personal statement directed toward you? :rolleyes:

You are so double-minded and conflicted about what you claim to believe, that you cannot even carry on a coherent discussion without resorting to name calling...I have yet to see any logical proof for this. Your proof seems to be your own interpretations and quotes of mine taken out of meaning and context.

If you can't even keep your temper on a silly little web site like this one, you appear to need further study and maturity before you try apologetics... Temper! LOL You spit on my best friend's grave and then try to use His morality as your own. One day, you're gonna pay, eternally.

Dana Scully
July 21st, 2002, 11:17 PM
Goose,

In the words of Benjamin Martin, "Aim small, miss small." Don’t let Zakath throw too many arguments at you at once. Find one great point, stick to it, ignore the others.

You can do it!
Dana

Eireann
July 21st, 2002, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Dana Scully
Goose,

In the words of Benjamin Martin, "Aim small, miss small." Don’t let Zakath throw too many arguments at you at once. Find one great point, stick to it, ignore the others.

You can do it!
Dana
Ha! I knew the X-Files was real! Can I have your autograph?

Goose
July 21st, 2002, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by Dana Scully
Goose,

In the words of Benjamin Martin, "Aim small, miss small." Don’t let Zakath throw too many arguments at you at once. Find one great point, stick to it, ignore the others.

You can do it!
Dana Awesome! I love that movie! I gotchya ;) But he's so wrong! It's like hitting the broadside of a barn! :up:

Goose
July 21st, 2002, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by Eireann

You might assume that it would be best to assume that, because it is a comfortable position for you, but it is much more likely that your morals are informed by that particular culture or society -- the culture of Christians who share your belief and interpretation...I agree with you Eirann. Culture helps tremendously. But culture isn't what DEFINES our morality. It can just help us, or hurt us in our growth.

Some cultures are better than others. Some cultures have a better standard of living and promote life better. Some are just better. It's this standard, this ruler, that is absolute.

Relativists don't believe in that measuring stick. They can't. It's self-refuting to say that there is a non-physical measuring stick of morality, yet also have culture define morality.

Zakath
July 22nd, 2002, 08:16 AM
All people, relativists and absolutists, use their own measuring stick. There's significant variation in the measuring stick used by Christians of differing backgrounds. Just check the amounts of discussion of various topics going on here at TOL.

If there wasn't significant variation, sites like this one wouldn't have much traffic. ;)

Goose
July 22nd, 2002, 08:23 AM
Christians have the mind of Christ, and therefore are able to discern and discuss amongst themselves, letting the Holy Spirit make the decision. Relativists do what is right in there own mind.

Isa 65:2 "I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way [that was] not good, after their own thoughts;"
Christians as a whole, listen to a higher authority. Relativists don't, by definition. Their authority is society, which is self-refuting. Our authority is the Holy Spirit.

Zakath
July 22nd, 2002, 08:50 AM
Congratulations, goose. This is almost looking like a real discussion!:D

Your post prompted a few questions...


Originally posted by Goose
Christians have the mind of Christ, and therefore are able to discern and discuss amongst themselves, letting the Holy Spirit make the decision. Relativists do what is right in there own mind. Are you also saying that Christians decide things on majority vote?

Do you believe that Christians should make their decisions solely by consensus or by vote?

How do the Christians determine that some alien entity is making the decision for them and not just their own subconscious minds?

In the Bible, even the NT, followers of YHWH used random chance to discern the will of their deity. How does this fit in with your discussion process?


Christians as a whole, listen to a higher authority. Relativists don't, by definition. Their authority is society, which is self-refuting. Our authority is the Holy Spirit. As a whole, indicates that there are some who do not do so. How does "the whole" determine who those "someones" are who are not listening?

How can the "the whole" be certain that the "someones" aren't correct and the majority are wrong?

cirisme
July 22nd, 2002, 09:59 AM
Are you also saying that Christians decide things on majority vote?

Hey! That doesn't sound like a bad idea. :)


How do the Christians determine that some alien entity is making the decision for them and not just their own subconscious minds?

If you're refering to anyone who claims the name of Christian, you don't. :rolleyes:


As a whole, indicates that there are some who do not do so. How does "the whole" determine who those "someones" are who are not listening?

I think Goose is refering to the whole of true Christians and not just those that claim the name. :rolleyes:


How can the "the whole" be certain that the "someones" aren't correct and the majority are wrong?

Huh?!?:confused:

Zakath
July 22nd, 2002, 11:15 AM
Cirisme,

In my attempt at literary parallelism, it appears that I lost a bit of clarity. Permit me to try again on my final question...

How do the majority of Chrisitians ("the whole") determine whether the minority (the "someones") is or is not correct in a particular circumstance?

cirisme
July 22nd, 2002, 12:24 PM
In my attempt at literary parallelism, it appears that I lost a bit of clarity. Permit me to try again on my final question...

Sure. :)


How do the majority of Chrisitians ("the whole") determine whether the minority (the "someones") is or is not correct in a particular circumstance?

The question is flawed to begin with. A Christian is someone with the Holy Spirit("the whole"), He leads us, we follow. If someone doesn't have the Holy Spirit, he cannot be a Christian.(the "someones") It is blatantly obvious to those with the Spirit who is a fraud, but because the world doesn't have the Spirit, the world can't discern the difference.

God bless you,
-AJ :)

Zakath
July 22nd, 2002, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by cirisme
The question is flawed to begin with. A Christian is someone with the Holy Spirit("the whole"), He leads us, we follow. If someone doesn't have the Holy Spirit, he cannot be a Christian.(the "someones") It is blatantly obvious to those with the Spirit who is a fraud, but because the world doesn't have the Spirit, the world can't discern the difference.You still are not understanding my question. It was originally for goose, not you. ..

My question is based on goose's use of the term "Chrstians, as a whole". That qualifier (or alternatively "on the whole") indicates that there are some in that classification that do not follow the majority. While your interpretation of goose's meaning may be correct, I'd still like to read goose clarify his own meaning.

Thanks.

Goose
July 22nd, 2002, 01:57 PM
"Christians, as a whole..." meant true Christians in the Body of Christ. I'm talking about Christians. Not the people who just say they are.

Zakath
July 22nd, 2002, 01:59 PM
Thank you for the clarification.

So it is then your contention, that all Christians would agree on every major point of doctrine, since they were all hearing from the same "mind"?

Goose
July 22nd, 2002, 05:01 PM
Like I said before, Christians don't know everything. Not even the Son of God knows everything. We have the mind of Christ. Even the apostles had doctrinal debates. The mind of Christ is for wisdom. It's something that a Christian matures with. It's not something that is zapped into them when they except Jesus as their Savior.

Zakath
July 22nd, 2002, 05:31 PM
But isn't it your claim that Jesus is co-equal with the Father? If so, how can he not be equal in knowledge.

Or is more "open view" revisionism where he just equal in some things and not others...

Regarding your "mind of Christ" theory. It sounds pretty darned inefficient to me. Your deity apparently isn't powerful enough to ensure that all his followers have the necessary info they need to be correct about doctrine.

... or his followers have misperceived what's really going on...:rolleyes:

Goose
July 22nd, 2002, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
But isn't it your claim that Jesus is co-equal with the Father? If so, how can he not be equal in knowledge.

Or is more "open view" revisionism where he just equal in some things and not others...

Regarding your "mind of Christ" theory. It sounds pretty darned inefficient to me. Your deity apparently isn't powerful enough to ensure that all his followers have the necessary info they need to be correct about doctrine.

... or his followers have misperceived what's really going on...:rolleyes: Uhm....You're an atheist skeptic, who doesn't even know if he absolutely exists. Where's the point where things would suddently become "clear" to you so that you could understand Zakath? I don't know everything. Why do you keep beating me up for not knowing everything? Don't you understand that I have faith? That even YOU have faith? I'm quoting from the Word of God. I have verses of the Deity of Christ. It's actually quite interesting, and even get's into the hebraic relationship between father and son. Take it as you will. Do your own research, Oh ye of little faith.

admiral_d
July 22nd, 2002, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Goose
Uhm....You're an atheist skeptic, who doesn't even know if he absolutely exists. Where's the point where things would suddently become "clear" to you so that you could understand Zakath? I don't know everything. Why do you keep beating me up for not knowing everything?

Because you have "the mind of Christ" , remember? Everything that you say is from Christ....remember? <shudder>



Don't you understand that I have faith? That even YOU have faith? I'm quoting from the Word of God. I have verses of the Deity of Christ. It's actually quite interesting, and even get's into the hebraic relationship between father and son. Take it as you will. Do your own research, Oh ye of little faith.

Goading someone into the faith is neither productive, nor convincing some of the faith, Goose....Try another route....

Goose
July 22nd, 2002, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by admiral_d


Because you have "the mind of Christ" , remember? Everything that you say is from Christ....remember? <shudder>
I replied the same to Zakath. ONLY God knows certain things, not even the Son of God. Quit beating a Christian up and defend your faith. One day, you might be the only one left, and you'll think back on how it would have been nice to have a little fellowship.



Goading someone into the faith is neither productive, nor convincing some of the faith, Goose....Try another route.... Everyone has faith. Everyone doesn't have the Faith.

Zakath
July 22nd, 2002, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Goose
Uhm....You're an atheist skeptic, who doesn't even know if he absolutely exists. Where's the point where things would suddently become "clear" to you so that you could understand Zakath? I don't know, but I'm certain you haven't demonstrated it yet, goose.


I don't know everything. Why do you keep beating me up for not knowing everything? Because you made some pretty bold assertions, even claiming to have the mind of a god. That's allegedly pretty significant wisdom. I'd like to see you demonstrate some little portion of it...


Don't you understand that I have faith? That even YOU have faith? So? I believe I will survive the night to debate with Knight tomorrow. That's faith. What's your point?


I'm quoting from the Word of God. What you're quoting is a translation of a language you cannot read. The translations are from multiple copies of a set of documents which do not exist and have not likely existed for almost twenty centuries. Hardly convincingly authoritative in my view. :rolleyes:


I have verses of the Deity of Christ. It's actually quite interesting, and even get's into the hebraic relationship between father and son. Take it as you will. Do your own research, Oh ye of little faith. Been there, done that. It's far from conclusive. If you want to understand the hebrew, go talk to a Jewish scholar, not a Christian one. But only if you think your "faith" is strong enough to handle it... ;)

Goose
July 22nd, 2002, 08:01 PM
Gen 1:27 "So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."It's people like you, Zakath, who defile this image. Am I perfect? No, that's because I'm a sinner, like you. But, I have accepted that atonement for sin, Jesus Christ. I'm different than you Zakath, in that I've been seperated for holiness.

Zakath
July 22nd, 2002, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Goose
It's people like you, Zakath, who defile this image.
Oooh, now my very existence defiles creation! Wow, I must be moving up in the world. ;)


Am I perfect? No...Boy, you said it, brother!


But, I have accepted that atonement for sin, Jesus Christ. How nice for you. So you gain relationship with your deity by taking advantage of another butchery by YHWH, this time of his own son.


I'm different than you Zakath, in that I've been seperated for holiness. Yes we're very different in several ways, goose. I'm a cynical middle-aged man and you're a gullible young man.

I've sat where you are quite a while before you were born. Been there, done that. You have yet to do hardly any of it.

I've raised four youngsters to adulthood and have two serving in the armed forces protecting the rights of people like you.

I've studied the a variety of human religious expressons for longer than you've been alive.

I've spend decades counseling the victims of various sorts of religious brainwashing, clergy child abuse, and people crushed by manipulative religious leaders.

I've worked "crusades", "revivals", "healing meetings", raised money for chuches, missions, and missionaries.

I've founded two churches, started a Christian school and a counseling center.

Those are a few of the ways we're different, goose. And there's one other...

If washing yourself in the blood of human sacrifices is what it takes to please your deity goose, count me out. :(

admiral_d
July 22nd, 2002, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Oooh, now my very existence defiles creation! Wow, I must be moving up in the world. ;)

Boy, you said it, brother!

How nice for you. So you gain relationship with your deity by taking advantage of another butchery by YHWH, this time of his own son.

Yes we're very different in several ways, goose. I'm a cynical middle-aged man and you're a gullible young man.

I've sat where you are quite a while before you were born. Been there, done that. You have yet to do hardly any of it.

I've raised four youngsters to adulthood and have two serving in the armed forces protecting the rights of people like you.

I've studied the a variety of human religious expressons for longer than you've been alive.

I've spend decades counseling the victims of various sorts of religious brainwashing, clergy child abuse, and people crushed by manipulative religious leaders.

I've worked "crusades", "revivals", "healing meetings", raised money for chuches, missions, and missionaries.

I've founded two churches, started a Christian school and a counseling center.

Those are a few of the ways we're different, goose. And there's one other...

If washing yourself in the blood of human sacrifices is what it takes to please your deity goose, count me out. :(

And you say that ... I... need to be easy on him!!!!


:D

Goose
July 22nd, 2002, 08:30 PM
He's regressing and trying to justify himself and his past. He's like an abusive father, who made some wrong choices in life, and just needs to state his case. Although, the case is closed already. Zakath, is found guilty, on all counts, with no hope. Unless he repents of his un-belief, and except the Lord as his savior.

admiral_d
July 22nd, 2002, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Goose
He's regressing and trying to justify himself and his past. He's like an abusive father, who made some wrong choices in life, and just needs to state his case. Although, the case is closed already. Zakath, is found guilty, on all counts, with no hope. Unless he repents of his un-belief, and except the Lord as his savior.

"an abusive father"

You know, that sort of slander can get you into a lawsuit, rather quickly and you could be paying for that for a long time....

That child of your in your pictures may not have a very good home due to your mouth.....

Listen to me son, and learn wisdom, the knowing when to open your mouth and when to keep it shut.....

Knight
July 22nd, 2002, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by admiral_d


"an abusive father"

You know, that sort of slander can get you into a lawsuit, rather quickly and you could be paying for that for a long time....

That child of your in your pictures may not have a very good home due to your mouth.....

Listen to me son, and learn wisdom, the knowing when to open your mouth and when to keep it shut..... Admiral...... Goose said...."He's like an abusive father", he didn't say "he is an abusive father"! It helps to read the posts completely before you accuse someone of something they didn't say. Fair enough?

admiral_d
July 22nd, 2002, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Admiral...... Goose said...."He's like an abusive father", he didn't say "he is an abusive father"! It helps to read the posts completely before you accuse someone of something they didn't say. Fair enough?

Speaking as a former moderator myself, I know where of I am speaking...Tell your moderator to reign in his comments as that last one is slanderous and can be used in a liable suit...and can shut down this board for lack of funds....

Of course, it IS your board....do with it as you will...but don't say that I didn't warn you....

At least talk to him.....

Knight
July 22nd, 2002, 10:16 PM
Admiral, your an embarrassment to yourself.

Goose
July 22nd, 2002, 10:39 PM
Admiral_Dimwit,

I'm almost certain Zakath never beat his kids. I wasn't even implying he did. I said, "he's like and abusive father" and I am like his son. He's talking down to me like a father talks to his son. I really have a hard time not laughing at you Admiral. Unbelievable.

admiral_d
July 22nd, 2002, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Admiral, your an embarrassment to yourself.

Knight, when you post a message, you need to check your spelling...

That's "Admiral, you're an embarrassment to yourself."

Get it right next time, Knight....:rolleyes:

admiral_d
July 22nd, 2002, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Goose
Admiral_Dimwit,

I'm almost certain Zakath never beat his kids. I wasn't even implying he did. I said, "he's like and abusive father" and I am like his son. He's talking down to me like a father talks to his son. I really have a hard time not laughing at you Admiral. Unbelievable.

Ah, again, showing that christlike behavior......

Goose
July 22nd, 2002, 11:02 PM
Admiral_D, the King of Hypocrites. Isn't there something in the bible about bearing false witness?

Knight,

We need to have a Hall of Hypocrisy or a Hall of Shame. Admiral would make a nice trophy.

admiral_d
July 22nd, 2002, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Goose
Admiral_D, the King of Hypocrites. Isn't there something in the bible about bearing false witness?

Knight,

We need to have a Hall of Hypocrisy or a Hall of Shame. Admiral would make a nice trophy.

So, this is your version of Christlike behavior, eh goose? This is how you choose to treat people , who know you to be the malevolent person that you are....

Some ambassador for Christ you are.....:down:

Goose
July 22nd, 2002, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Admiral_D
The problem is ...[Zakath is] talking truth....Goose...You gotta know that.....

[Zakath is] more of a christian than you are, Goose....
Proverbs 24:24-25 "He that saith unto the wicked, Thou [art] righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him: But to them that rebuke [him] shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them."
John 3:20 "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."

Zakath
July 23rd, 2002, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Goose
He's regressing and trying to justify himself and his past. He's like an abusive father, who made some wrong choices in life, and just needs to state his case. Although, the case is closed already. Zakath, is found guilty, on all counts, with no hope. Wow, goose is playing psychologist, judge, jury, and probably just drooling over the thought of being my executioner.

"Little man, you've had a busy day.":rolleyes:


Unless he repents of his un-belief, and except the Lord as his savior. Why would I "except the Lord"? So I can be like you? If that's my option, you'll find me running, not walking, to nearest exit gate of whatever non-heavenly afterlife you believe in... :rolleyes:

Goose
July 23rd, 2002, 08:34 AM
You actually know very little about me Zakath.

admiral_d
July 23rd, 2002, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Goose
You actually know very little about me Zakath.

He and the world who comes here know enough to see how you reflect your god, Goose....That is what is impressing him and the rest of the world....

If you really want to really impress us, Goose. Try sitting at the feet of the Master and learn humility.....Kinda bitter going down, but it does you a world of good....:D

Goose
July 23rd, 2002, 09:03 AM
Admiral_D,

Just who's playing God here? Are you judging me again? Hypocrite!

admiral_d
July 23rd, 2002, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Goose
Admiral_D,

Just who's playing God here? Are you judging me again? Hypocrite!

There you go again, reflecting that magnanimous creator of yours.......

You know, Goose, if judging comes this easy, it makes me wonder why God gave us brains to tempt us with this "sin"....

If you are the christian that you claim to be, Goose, you might want to look up Eph 4:29, and follow it......:up:

Goose
July 23rd, 2002, 09:22 AM
And just how are my words corrupt? You're the hypocrite.

admiral_d
July 23rd, 2002, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Goose
And just how are my words corrupt? You're the hypocrite.

Is that how Jesus converted the world, goose, calling everyone "the hypocrite"?

I only see Jesus calling groups of people "hypocrites", but never was the word used in the presence of one on one dialgue, that is , with individuals. You on the other hand have been repleat calling people hypocrite and are quick to hide behind that "thou shalt not judge me" skirt of an arguement...You are afraid of facinng the greatest fear there is, Goose,.....yourself...

Those of us who have been there, know it....it's pretty plain, Goose...You had better sit at the feet of Jesus, because if you ever see yourself as we see you, you just might do something rash....:)

cirisme
July 23rd, 2002, 11:15 AM
Give me a break, admiral! He calls you "Hypocrite!" and you call him "unchristian."

Can you, in your opinion, judge whether someone else is a Christian?

Can you, in your opinion, judge anything about another human being?

Hank
July 23rd, 2002, 11:45 AM
This is a great thread. Goose reminds me of one of the reasons I left Christianity and went to following the teachings of Jesus. Based on the teaching of Jesus, Zak is closer to practicing the will of God than Goose will every be.

No offense intended Zak. :)

Zakath
July 23rd, 2002, 11:54 AM
Considering the tone in which the comment was offered, no offense was taken, Hank. :)

admiral_d
July 23rd, 2002, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by cirisme
Give me a break, admiral! He calls you "Hypocrite!" and you call him "unchristian."

Excuse me, but why should I give him a break? Does he deserve one? In what way? I don't think that he deserves a break because he doesn't show the fruits of a christian...


Can you, in your opinion, judge whether someone else is a Christian?

Yes I can...Jesus said that you shall know people by thier fruits...What fruit has Goose shown in his posts? [Turning to Zak-I am sorry Zak, but, in all fairness, I don't think you can call Goose's ' cooked goose ' a fruit!:) ]

He is insulting [ look at the names he has called me], he has insulted my intelligence [so what, that I am not the smartest cookie in the jar, I still have balls enough to play, and to play fairly]...You show me chapter and verse where Jesus did the same thing as that in the same context, and I will back off. K?



Can you, in your opinion, judge anything about another human being?

Excuse me???? are you saying that we are not allowed to judge what type of character another human being is??? Are you saying that the evidence that a person puts out is not enough to judge a person? Maybe you had better define what you mean by "JUDGE"? I think, biblically, it means that we have no concept if a person is going to hell or to heaven, so give up on trying to figure it out...But you do have the right to judge fruit of the individual as to whether it is good or bad or non-existant fruit...

The fruit of the spirit that Jesus was refering to is found in Gal. 5:22. But the fruit that I find that Goose is continously putting out is found in verse 20. Now, a good programer can "compare" these statements against what Goose is doing....I think that goose keeps comming up short....infact, he's down right negetive...

Jesus said that there were 3 types of trees...ones that gave fruit, fruit that refreshes the soul, 2] bad fruit, one's that are spoiled and no good to eat....3] lots of folage, but no fruit...

You tell me, Cisme, what type of fruit does Goose exhibit?

cirisme
July 23rd, 2002, 04:14 PM
Excuse me, but why should I give him a break? Does he deserve one? In what way? I don't think that he deserves a break because he doesn't show the fruits of a christian...

First, it's Christian. Second, get some glasses. I said "Give me a break." :rolleyes: Which, FYI, is a well known slang phrase.


He is insulting [ look at the names he has called me], he has insulted my intelligence [so what, that I am not the smartest cookie in the jar, I still have balls enough to play, and to play fairly]...You show me chapter and verse where Jesus did the same thing as that in the same context, and I will back off. K?

Interesting, everything you accuse him of doing you are guilty of yourself.


Excuse me???? are you saying that we are not allowed to judge what type of character another human being is??? Are you saying that the evidence that a person puts out is not enough to judge a person?

Admiral_deception, Mind showing me where I said any of that?


But you do have the right to judge fruit of the individual as to whether it is good or bad or non-existant fruit...

Tell me, have you held that view long?

On 30th of June, 2002 in the year of our Lord at 0958 hours you said the following, and I quote:


Tell me, what right do Christians have to "judge others"

That was said here (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2571) if you want to go back and edit it. :rolleyes: FYI: I have saved a copy of this page so that even if you do edit it, you won't escape. :D


The fruit of the spirit that Jesus was refering to is found in Gal. 5:22. But the fruit that I find that Goose is continously putting out is found in verse 20.

V20:"Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies..."

Idolatry: I don't see him worshipping flase gods.
Witchcraft: I don't see him casting spells
Hatred: I don't see any hate. In fact I see the opposite, someone who loves enough to point out the truth.
Variance: Don't see any of that?
Emulations: None of that...
Wrath: None of that...
Strife: It is you, my friend, that is causing this.
Seditions: None of that...
Heresies: You have yet to find a place of scripture that goose contradicts.

Perhaps you could narrow it down?


Jesus said that there were 3 types of trees...ones that gave fruit, fruit that refreshes the soul, 2] bad fruit, one's that are spoiled and no good to eat....3] lots of folage, but no fruit...

What's "folage"[sic]?


You tell me, Cisme, what type of fruit does Goose exhibit?

You're such a great judge and know so much more than I, you tell me.

Yxboom
July 23rd, 2002, 04:29 PM
ouch!

Goose
July 23rd, 2002, 05:26 PM
Wow. CIRisme knows how to get right down to it. :)

Knight
July 23rd, 2002, 05:33 PM
The admiral takes one to the chin! :eek:

cirisme
July 23rd, 2002, 06:05 PM
Next he's going to say I'm not a Christian because I hit an officer. :D

Goose
July 23rd, 2002, 06:43 PM
Is that while he's beating on you? ;)

admiral_d
July 23rd, 2002, 09:19 PM
quote:
Excuse me, but why should I give him a break? Does he deserve one? In what way? I don't think that he deserves a break because he doesn't show the fruits of a christian...

First, it's Christian.


Oh, no it’s not wrong..I got it right the first time...:)




quote:
He is insulting [ look at the names he has called me], he has insulted my intelligence [so what, that I am not the smartest cookie in the jar, I still have balls enough to play, and to play fairly]...You show me chapter and verse where Jesus did the same thing as that in the same context, and I will back off. K?

Interesting, everything you accuse him of doing you are guilty of yourself.

Uh, where are the names that I have called him that were not evidence by his posts?
Let’s see, He calls himself a christian, but tells the world that Christ would approve of torturing a condemned person. As an Ambassador for Christ, he is the letter to the world that displays how Christ would act. He won’t fess up to even the possibility that he _might_ be just a little bit wrong...but instead hides behind the myth that other people are not allowed to “judge him” because he is a christian..[no accountability there, is there?] He then proceed to call everyone else “hypocrite” for calling him to account for this error of his. He then calls other people names [again misrepresenting what Jesus would do] ....and YOU DEFEND THIS BEHAVIOR as Christian????

Gee, did I just hear maniacal laughter echoing here?:(


quote:

Excuse me???? are you saying that we are not allowed to judge what type of character another human being is??? Are you saying that the evidence that a person puts out is not enough to judge a person?

Admiral_deception, Mind showing me where I said any of that?


I am asking the questions and asking for clarification of what you said....Why do you jump to conclusions? Are you here to start a fight? IS that what you want? IF so, where is that attitude consistent with the life of Christ?

You said-


Can you, in your opinion, judge anything about another human being?


Is this a rhetorical question?



quote:

But you do have the right to judge fruit of the individual as to whether it is good or bad or non-existent fruit...

Tell me, have you held that view long?


Ever since I read it in the bible....And when people kept saying “ You aren’t allowed to judge other christians!” which I found to be a bunch of bunk....



On 30th of June, 2002 in the year of our Lord at 0958 hours you said the following, and I quote:

quote:

Tell me, what right do Christians have to "judge others"

That was said here if you want to go back and edit it. FYI: I have saved a copy of this page so that even if you do edit it, you won't escape.



And it is taken out of context..Here, let me get you the total quote-

“Tell me, what right do Christians have to "judge others" or at least, wish for them the worst of life after they have made a mistake? Sure, I agree, from what this post said, not all marbles are in place....but if those children were resurrected, do you not agree that those children would forgive her? “

This is cut and pasted here, with no alterations...Notice the quotation marks around the words 'judge others’.The context is about kicking people when they are down..as in this case, a certain moderator wants to torture people in the name of Christ.....You tell me, Is this the right thing to do? Is this what your daddy taught you that when you put someone down, you kick her and make sure that she is all the way down? Is that right? If so, that is poor form, Cisime..

I John 3.10
By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: Any one who does not practice righteousness is not of God nor the one who does not love his brother.

Oh, and Cisime, I am a part of humanity, who happens to be Christian...When you judge me according to the verse I gave, make sure you include that mankind is my brother and sister...That is the model that I am working off of...So, when you or goose don’t show love toward mankind, well, ...I am sorry, but I tend to get a bit irrate...And I tend to call so called christians on the carpet for their actions and their words...



quote:

The fruit of the spirit that Jesus was referring to is found in Gal. 5:22. But the fruit that I find that Goose is continuously putting out is found in verse 20.

Hatred: I don't see any hate. In fact I see the opposite, someone who loves enough to point out the truth.

Pointing the truth without kindness is cruelty...a form of hate


Wrath: None of that...


You mean that goose is not desplaying a passive agressive tenancys in his judging that woman? And it looks to me that you are too...You want evidence of this, well we just happen to have a councilor here on this forum...ZAK, do you think that there are passive/agressive tendency here displayed by both these individuals? [my moneys on the answer “yes”]



Strife: It is you, my friend, that is causing this.

First off, my friends don’t use derogatory names or misuses my name to bolster their ego...Second, the dictionary definition of “strife” is ‘violent dissension, bitter conflict’...I have said that I was done talking about it in the other thread...But you won’t let me move on. YOU have brought this up.You, in this case, have brought strife here..So,in an attempt to end this, I will say again -All I want from Goose is a simple apology for over statement and being inappropriate....It's the right thing to do...



You tell me, Cisme, what type of fruit does Goose exhibit?
You're such a great judge and know so much more than I, you tell me.

Nah, you have a brain...I encourage you to try using it....;)

Goose
July 23rd, 2002, 10:07 PM
Admiral,

I think you need to re-evaluate your faith and your view on Jesus; pertaining to just what He did and they way He treated people.

admiral_d
July 23rd, 2002, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by Goose
Admiral,

I think you need to re-evaluate your faith and your view on Jesus; pertaining to just what He did and they way He treated people.

What? and follow yours, Goose? Why should I?

I see your faith as one bloodthirsty convert seeking the death of the condemned with some gleeful torturing of the condemned. I don't kick people when they are down, goose...You like to...You have shown it many times since the last month that I have been here...Tell me, if my God is out to treat people with respect, and your god is not, why do I want to go to your god? Why do I want to be beaten into your faith in some image that hurts me so....
Why?

My faith is bibically based, with a reasonable God, who does not send people to hell needlessly, when they choose to reject Him but does everthing thing in His power to arrest the attention of the individual to Him...I was fortunate enought to listen when He choose me to be with Him....We have a great relationship, we talk, and share things, and generally have a great time together....Why would I want to give that up for your religion?

Why should I give up the love of my life, for something that is less than what I have, Goose?

Answer me that.....Why should I ?

Goose
July 23rd, 2002, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by admiral_d

...My faith is bibically based, with a reasonable God, who does not send people to hell needlessly, when they choose to reject Him but does everthing thing in His power to arrest the attention of the individual to Him...I was fortunate enought to listen when He choose me to be with Him....We have a great relationship, we talk, and share things, and generally have a great time together....Why would I want to give that up for your religion?I believe that too.


Why should I give up the love of my life, for something that is less than what I have, Goose?? I never said anything about giving up. I'm talking about looking more at what Jeses did. Not what you think he did. You seem to be able to back up your opinions with little scripture, that easily becomes debunked. I care about your relationship with Jesus.

admiral_d
July 24th, 2002, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Goose
I believe that too.

I am sorry Goose, but from what you have posted here, I don't believe you...You have called me names, cruel names...you have insulted my intellegence [so what]...the point is that your fruits or works don't show a relationship with Christ....at least in my eyes...

I am sorry if this hurts you ...but I don't believe that you really believe it....You don't show evidence of it.....



? I never said anything about giving up. I'm talking about looking more at what Jeses did. Not what you think he did. You seem to be able to back up your opinions with little scripture, that easily becomes debunked. I care about your relationship with Jesus.

You care about MY relationship with Jesus??? I don't think you care about my relationship with Him anymore than you care about that woman that killed her children by leaving them in the car....You know, you really did step over the line by saying that she needed to be tortured to death....

How come you wont say something ...anything ...to make amends for this? It seems to me, even if you do not agree with me, that you could say that you were sorry for something about it......

Oh well, you don't really care.....do you....

cirisme
July 24th, 2002, 09:31 AM
Uh, where are the names that I have called him that were not evidence by his posts?

First off, "unchristian." :p


Let’s see, He calls himself a christian, but tells the world that Christ would approve of torturing a condemned person.

Perhaps you'd care to prove that he wouldn't.

Since you would, undoubtedly, want the same from me:


Mat 5:17 "Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Remember, the punishment for killing a person in the OT was stoning, something you might call torture.


As an Ambassador for Christ, he is the letter to the world that displays how Christ would act.

Yes.


He won’t fess up to even the possibility that he _might_ be just a little bit wrong...

And you won't fess up to where you think he is wrong.


but instead hides behind the myth that other people are not allowed to “judge him” because he is a christian..

That statement was my impression of you. Goose, is the above true? I thought you believed the opposite. :confused:


He then proceed to call everyone else “hypocrite” for calling him to account for this error of his.

You say "don't judge"(I'm getting to that, BTW) and yet persist to judge him. That's what a hypocrite is!


I am asking the questions and asking for clarification of what you said....Why do you jump to conclusions? Are you here to start a fight? IS that what you want? IF so, where is that attitude consistent with the life of Christ?

All of a sudden he thinks my name is admiral_d. :p


This is cut and pasted here, with no alterations...Notice the quotation marks around the words 'judge others’.The context is about kicking people when they are down..as in this case, a certain moderator wants to torture people in the name of Christ.....You tell me, Is this the right thing to do? Is this what your daddy taught you that when you put someone down, you kick her and make sure that she is all the way down? Is that right?

What are the fruits of this woman's actions, admiral? When people started to say that this was evil and should be punished as God's law states you said "don't judge!" Or are you flippy-flopping again?


Pointing the truth without kindness is cruelty...a form of hate

So was Jesus being "unkind" when He dumped tables and whipped people in the temple?


You mean that goose is not desplaying a passive agressive tenancys in his judging that woman? And it looks to me that you are too...You want evidence of this, well we just happen to have a councilor here on this forum...ZAK, do you think that there are passive/agressive tendency here displayed by both these individuals? [my moneys on the answer “yes”]

Oh pleazzzzeeee!


First off, my friends don’t use derogatory names or misuses my name to bolster their ego...Second, the dictionary definition of “strife” is ‘violent dissension, bitter conflict’...I have said that I was done talking about it in the other thread...But you won’t let me move on. YOU have brought this up.You, in this case, have brought strife here..So,in an attempt to end this, I will say again -All I want from Goose is a simple apology for over statement and being inappropriate....It's the right thing to do...

So, since he won't obey YOU, you want him "court-martialed"? :rolleyes: Maybe the sailors on your boat were forced to follow you, but not here. :rolleyes:

admiral_d
July 24th, 2002, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by cirisme
First off, "unchristian." :p

You are right...Goose, I appologize for saying that you are unchristian....Even though, you misrepresented Christ by saying that you want to torture a woman to death, and that you like to demean other people by insulting them and thier intelligence, I appologize that you do things that are less then the stellar behavior of our Lord.....



Perhaps you'd care to prove that he wouldn't.

Excuse me??? whether he does this physically or not, does not matter...It is what came from his heart. As Jesus said, for out of the mouth come the issues of the heart. Mat12:34 This is a spiritual issue, of which need to be held accountable....And everytime this is brought up, without him repenting of it, gets a bit dirtier and dirtier.... I wish that you guys would quit bringing this up...You are making him look bad, because I have to review his actions....I have said that I want to move on, YOU are the ones who keep bringing this up....If Goose want to end this, he knows what to do.....


Remember, the punishment for killing a person in the OT was stoning, something you might call torture.

It was thier method of dispatching those found guilty of a crime...But what does that have to do with getting an apology from Goose to prove that he is a christian?


Yes.
You agree!!!!!! To paraphrase someone-
'Halleluah, there is life, question on the intelligent part, on the other side of the screen!"


And you won't fess up to where you think he is wrong.

What think is wrong? I cut and pasted it in context. The evidence is there for your examination... You have a brain....you decide...


That statement was my impression of you. Goose, is the above true? I thought you believed the opposite. :confused:

What? You are attacking me without looking at the evidence?.....You set yourself up for slander, and a whole host of other things, cirisme......I don't think that you have any defense for what you just did, cirisme.....go back and look at the evidence.....and review it before you come in here with your ego....

You say "don't judge"(I'm getting to that, BTW) and yet persist to judge him. That's what a hypocrite is!

Again, I tried to explain that to you last time, and you refuse to look at that...Let me attempt to explain it again, since I type so fast....

I said “Tell me, what right do Christians have to "judge others" or at least, wish for them the worst of life after they have made a mistake? Sure, I agree, from what this post said, not all marbles are in place....but if those children were resurrected, do you not agree that those children would forgive her? “
The point that I was attempting to make was that real Christians don't make comments to the point of wishing for others an ignoble torture and death. ...And from the context, that is what I am trying to say....With others attempting to point out that I have judged them, my understanding of that their concept of "judging someone" is to pass judgement upon thier lives....I am not judging thier lives...I am pointing out, rather forcably, that thier posts were less than appropriate for a christian to do...


What are the fruits of this woman's actions, admiral? When people started to say that this was evil and should be punished as God's law states you said "don't judge!" Or are you flippy-flopping again?

What is this??? Am I typing too fast for you again....Christians don't wish torture on anyone. Period. End of statement.

But of course, if you haven't reviewed the thread, how can you know that...? And aren't you applying a double standard here? You argue the same arguement, using as evidence the words "this woman fruits", but you won't allow Goose's fruits to be examined ? That's a double standard...


So was Jesus being "unkind" when He dumped tables and [i]whipped people in the temple?
I don't read where Jesus used the whips on the people, and since Jesus' life is one of healing and caring, I really doubt that using the whip was ever intended to be placed upon His people. His actions of upseting the tables in the temple were to show something entirely different than what we are discussing here...So, unless you are attempting to draw attention to yourself as the Messiah, or you are attempting to clean out your fathers house of noisy money changers, your evidence is attempting to show..... what, ?????

cirisme
July 24th, 2002, 01:17 PM
Excuse me??? whether he does this physically or not, does not matter...It is what came from his heart. As Jesus said, for out of the mouth come the issues of the heart. Mat12:34 This is a spiritual issue, of which need to be held accountable....

So what, you're God now!?!?


And everytime this is brought up, without him repenting of it, gets a bit dirtier and dirtier....

Repent of what? You have yet to show clear Biblical evidence anybody violated what Jesus said :rolleyes:


I wish that you guys would quit bringing this up...

If you don't like it, don't respond. Simple as that. :)


You are making him look bad,

Now he thinks Goose's name is admiral_d.


because I have to review his actions....

because I have to review his actions!?!?! :mad: Chapter and verse where it says YOU are in charge of THIS flock.


I have said that I want to move on,

Move on, nothing is keeping you here. Move on for good, that would be real nice.


YOU are the ones who keep bringing this up

Hmmm, interesting, now he thinks that the whole world has the name admiral_d.


If Goose want to end this, he knows what to do.....

Yes, ban you. :p


It was thier method of dispatching those found guilty of a crime...But what does that have to do with getting an apology from Goose to prove that he is a christian?

A little something about judging. By the way, I do expect chapter and verse where it says that an apology makes a Christian.


What think is wrong? I cut and pasted it in context. The evidence is there for your examination... You have a brain....you decide...

There is no evidence. All you have provided is unfounded assertions and your opinion to back them up.


What? You are attacking me without looking at the evidence?

How am I attacking you?


You set yourself up for slander, and a whole host of other things, cirisme......

And you just set yourself up for going to the funny farm.


I don't think that you have any defense for what you just did, cirisme.....

I didn't just do anything. :rolleyes: Are you hallucinating?


go back and look at the evidence.....and review it before you come in here with your ego....

You think that're God's appointed judge and everyone has to apologize to you and I have the ego?!?!


The point that I was attempting to make was that real Christians don't make comments to the point of wishing for others an ignoble torture and death. [I admit that my communication techniques are not as stellar as I would like, but I did attempt to clarify my position]...And from the context, that is what I am trying to say....

No, what you're trying to say is "what right do Christians have to "judge others" OR AT LEAST, wish for them the worst of life."


With others attempting to point out that I have judged them, my understanding of that their concept of "judging someone" is to pass judgement upon thier lives....I am not judging thier lives...I am pointing out, rather forcably, that thier posts were less than appropriate for a christian to do...

And the others on that thread were judging that the actions of this woman were less than stellar for a human being.


Christians don't wish torture on anyone. Period. End of statement.

I'll let eireann handle this one. :D


But of course, if you haven't reviewed the thread, how can you know that...?

Prove it. FYI: I read every post there.


And aren't you applying a double standard here? You argue the same arguement, using as evidence the words "this woman fruits", but you won't allow Goose's fruits to be examined ?

You are free to examine for all I care. But I do object to using your own ruler instead of God's.


That's a double standard...

What is? Ohhhh, you are referring to your double standard. I see!


I don't read where Jesus used the whips on the people, and since Jesus' life is one of healing and caring, I really doubt that using the whip was ever intended to be placed upon His people. His actions of upseting the tables in the temple were to show something entirely different than what we are discussing here...So, unless you are attempting to draw attention to yourself as the Messiah, or you are attempting to clean out your fathers house of noisy money changers, your evidence is attempting to show..... what, ?????

That you just love to have an image of God that is your own and nobody else's.

:p

Eireann
July 24th, 2002, 02:10 PM
originally posted by admiral_d
What is this??? Am I typing too fast for you again....Christians don't wish torture on anyone. Period. End of statement.

How are you defining "Christians" in this statement? Some of the most heinous acts of torture in history were carried out by "Christians" in the name of God and Church. The Inquisition is a prime example. Suspected witches were thrown into ponds to see if they would float. If they floated, it meant they were a witch and they were summarily killed. If they drowned they were absolved. Very humane. Witches were also suspected of having an invisible third nipple which they used to nurse demons. They were subjected to a pricking torture to discover it. They were stabbed with needles over every millimeter of their bodies. The third nipple was supposedly nerveless, so they "knew" they had found it when they poked somewhere that did not result in a cry, wince, or other expression of pain. After enough stabs, the body would go into shock and stop feeling pain, so they won a lot of "confessions" that way. There were a number of other more grisly means of extracting confessions from "witches" and "heretics." These things were done, of course, with the blessings (and at the behest of) the Church.

Goose
July 24th, 2002, 05:01 PM
Admiral_Hypocrisy,

That's not an honest apology. Your heart is still very hyopcritical on the issue. I can tell because you still belittle me with everything. You need to revaluate things. Never did I say that we need to torture people. You didn't quote it because I never said it.

You're still judging me Satan!

cirisme
July 24th, 2002, 05:40 PM
Christians don't wish torture on anyone. Period. End of statement.

You might want to be carefull, I can quote some nasty stuff from Judges and Leviticus. :p

Zakath
July 24th, 2002, 06:25 PM
Eireann,

Don't confuse goose with the truth. He can't handle the truth. That's why he's an unchurched "Christian".

Zakath
July 24th, 2002, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by cirisme


You might want to be carefull, I can quote some nasty stuff from Judges and Leviticus. :p And the Biblical books of Judges and Leviticus would have what to do with Christians torturing anyone? :confused:

Eireann
July 24th, 2002, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
Eireann,

Don't confuse goose with the truth. He can't handle the truth. That's why he's an unchurched "Christian".
Actually, I think it was admiral who posted that little tidbit I was responding to.

Zakath
July 24th, 2002, 06:46 PM
My apologies. I wasn't wearing my glasses. :o

Knight
June 10th, 2005, 03:24 PM
Anyone remember this old thread?

Knight
June 10th, 2005, 03:27 PM
LOL... reading this is funny. I wish I had a dime for everytime Zakath had his butt whipped on TOL. :D

Knight
June 10th, 2005, 03:29 PM
This thread has been inducted into the TOL Hall of Fame as of this day 06-10-2005