D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Hank:
What I was saying, and again, you will probably find this offensive, but you are practicing cognitive dissidence and have not taken your ideas to their logical conclusion which would be a species of moral relativism. Because you have not done that, you are not a moral relativist but rather an inconsistent moral reasoner. I further said, though, that not even self-avowed (admitted) moral relativists can live out that idea consistently as demonstrated by their sense of violation when someone robs them. They understand that such robbery is objectively wrong.
And everyone here except you understands that one or all of us is wrong, and that is it not open to private and contradictory interpretation.
You have a caricature of what absolutism is. The absolutism that you have painted is not Biblical, but then again you don’t believe that there can be anything that is absolutely Biblical, and that is what logically would make you a relativist. You cannot say that that lying is wrong all the time for me, for if my subjective spiritual experience has taught me otherwise, you have nothing to appeal to in order to show that I am wrong.
You keep skimming the point… it is more than mere disagreement that you don’t “get it.”
And if I state that immoral deception is always wrong, I may be wrong about that fact, but it is an absolute as well.
Whether or not something is absolute or not does not depend upon my ability to explain or define it. I have said already here that morality and absolutes are akin to mathematics.. they are not invented, they are discovered and exist independently of any human consensus as to their proper application or existence. I never said I could not define the line where something (anything by implication in your statement) is moral or immoral. However, for me to explain every situation or even a partial list of possible scenarios on deception would require me to write a dissertation, and sorry my friend, the only subject that I write dissertations on is eschatology. I can simply define my position on deception by stating that people should be straightforward and truthful unless there is a more weighty and compelling moral reason not to be so. This is not so difficult.
Apparently you’re not smart enough to understand it like I do
What I was saying, and again, you will probably find this offensive, but you are practicing cognitive dissidence and have not taken your ideas to their logical conclusion which would be a species of moral relativism. Because you have not done that, you are not a moral relativist but rather an inconsistent moral reasoner. I further said, though, that not even self-avowed (admitted) moral relativists can live out that idea consistently as demonstrated by their sense of violation when someone robs them. They understand that such robbery is objectively wrong.Correction to my prior statement… Knight and I are basing our beliefs on an outside objective and verifiable source.
Again, you are engaging in some major “missing the point.” My interpretation of the Bible may be incorrect, but only I have a leg to stand to say that. You can never say that anyone’s interpretation is incorrect because your only judge is a subjective spiritual experience. Because I believe that the Bible actually universally and objectively says something, someone like Knight can come to me and we can examine the Scriptures and attempts to “discover” what it objectively says. The fact that I believe that there is a correct interpretation (and recognize that mine may be incorrect) is the one thing that makes debates and discourse meaningful rather than exercises in navel contemplation.
Because you have nothing outside of your subjective spiritual experience with which to test what this alleged spirit is telling you. And all I have to do is claim that my “spirit” is telling me something different, and then you have the Holy Spirit contradicting Himself.
And everyone here except you understands that one or all of us is wrong, and that is it not open to private and contradictory interpretation.
You have a caricature of what absolutism is. The absolutism that you have painted is not Biblical, but then again you don’t believe that there can be anything that is absolutely Biblical, and that is what logically would make you a relativist. You cannot say that that lying is wrong all the time for me, for if my subjective spiritual experience has taught me otherwise, you have nothing to appeal to in order to show that I am wrong.
