They seem to be the same.
Political values...an oxymoron?
- Thread starter nikolai_42
- Start date
They seem to be the same.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
I'm trying to figure out how to respond without going down the rabbit trail of defending or justifying slavery (or condemning it). The reasoning Jose Fly used to say women were oppressed in days gone by is just as squishy. Who is to say that making $1.00/hr is slavery? What is the definition that makes it wrong? The bible doesn't define it, but makes it clear that God used it to punish Israel. And it was used to settle debts. But at the same time, the Jubilee years were also mandated - in which all debts were cancelled and all indentured servitude was released. So if one was to agree to slavery on a biblical basis, they should certainly institute it biblically. But that proves the point that reasoning as the heart of defining right and wrong will inevitably lead astray.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
What's the difference? One uses the bible and twists it, the other (forums) uses other people's ideas. In the end, the determining factor is either subjective ("MY reasoning") or objective (accurately taking in all the facts and determining the correct response). The scriptures proscribe (and prescribe) several things - which don't need reasoning to support. And where proscription (or prescription) is not explicit, consistent application of the scriptures will yield good results.
PureX
Well-known member
The politicians, the media, and the wealthy elite that own them all have a vested interest in fanning the flames of social contention and strife. They have figured out that the easiest and most effective way of doing that is to stir up people's innate desire to pass moral judgments and condemnation on each other, so as to feel better and more superior, themselves.
The media does it because they are paid to keep people watching, listening to, and reading their media feeds by the advertisers that advertise, there. And they have discovered that when they stir up our moral indignation and give us some scapegoats to aim it at, we like it very much. And we will keep coming back to their feeds for more of it. Thus, they can sell lots of advertising in between the incendiary content, and make lots of money. Every political debate becomes a 'battle royal', every political issue becomes a an 'absolute imperative', and everyone gets someone else to loathe and blame, for everything.
The politicians do it because they need to get elected, and re-elected. And they have discovered that if they can stir up that righteous indignation and aim it at their opponents, they can win elections, regardless of how poor a candidate they are, themselves. So they, too, are hard at work playing up every point of contention, to maximum effect, and then slinging as much outrage and indignation as they can muster at their political opponents. And of course, the media is only too happy to oblige them in this endeavor.
And the wealthy elite that now control the media via all those advertising dollars, and control the politicians via big campaign contributions, have discovered that they can get away with just about anything so long as the rest of us are busy judging, condemning, and blaming each other for all the ugly consequences of what the wealthy elite have been doing to this country (as they systematically rob us all, blind).
So a kind of cultural juggernaut of moral, political, and economic outrage and indignation has been created that is constantly being fed by the conflated, selfish, agenda-driven propaganda of the media, and the politicians, all paid for by the rich, who are using it to keep us distracted while they rob the economy and pile up untold billions of dollars in foreign banks.
The problem with that analogy is that it equates the church with morality, which is a false analogy. The church is just people. The same people that the media, the politicians, and the wealthy elite are working so hard to keeping all stirred up and blaming each other, morally, politically and economically, for everything.
Good questions. And sadly, the answer is all too often NOT the Church. And in fact, we find the churches standing right in the middle of the crap-storm, shouting the judgment and condemnation all the more loudly, in hopes of gaining some attention (money) and political clout for themselves. The train of righteous indignation has the church as one of it's main supporting engines. Ever ready and willing to help people point those wagging fingers at someone else, and accept whatever wealth and clout they can gain from it.
Jose Fly
New member
No, not objective morality. There is no such thing.
If you mean across humanity, then of course slavery still exists. But it is significantly less than just a few hundred years ago, which I think is a good thing.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight....it was just an accident.
I'm quite sure many of the people who committed all those terrible deeds were firmly convinced that they were acting morally, at times even according to the will of their god(s). And obviously at times the society in which they lived agreed with them (or else they would have put a stop to it). Again, that shows how "morality" is an evolving concept.
I didn't say that. I said I'm baffled by people from today who look upon those times as "the good ol' days".
By today's standards those were terrible, awful times. At the time they were being carried out....not so much, again demonstrating that "morality" is not objective and evolves over time.
See above.
PureX
Well-known member
"Truth" has always been a brass ring hung up for us by hucksters and charlatans. It's about time the rest of humanity finally figures that out.
Unfortunately, as we are figuring that out, we are not yet replacing it with honesty, and the universal human values of love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity that should have been our goals all along.