Where are your tithes going?

[Granite]

History would prove you wrong.

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

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

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

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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

Are you a moral relativist?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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

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

It was legal in Nazi Germany to murder Jews.

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

 

[Zakath]

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

I justify it because of social contract. You cannot do so, but I do.

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

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

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

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I justify it because of social contract. You cannot do so, but I do.

Can you post this "social contract"? I would like to read it.

 

[fool]

From Webster's New Ninth Collegiate Dictionary;
relativism 1 b; a veiw that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.

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

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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

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

There goes your "social contract"! :rotfl:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

From Webster's New Ninth Collegiate Dictionary;
relativism 1 b; a veiw that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.

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

Zakath doesn't have a "stick" that's the point!!!

Dude, get with the program.

 

[Zakath]

There goes your "social contract"! :rotfl:

Yup, shows what happens when you let the Church have too much influence in society...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yup, shows what happens when you let the Church have too much influence in society...

Well, at least you concede the point. :up:

 

[fool]

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

Your right Poly,
it's my hands around his neck that will convince him.
It's my hands around his neck that will deliver justice as well, like I said before, Yaweh is out of the business.

 

[fool]

Zakath doesn't have a "stick" that's the point!!!

Dude, get with the program.

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

 

[Poly]

I justify it because of social contract.

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

 

[Turbo]

One would also think that considering rape and murder have NEVER been considered legal our forebears might have figured this out long before they were handed some slabs with the law on them.

You agree that (most*) abortions are murder, don't you? And yet it has been legal for decades.


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

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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

Your beef is with Zakath.

 

[allsmiles]

Forget about evidence for a minute.

=

Knight, "uh-oh..."

Think about this....

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Granite]

You agree that (most*) abortions are murder, don't you? And yet it has been legal for decades.


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

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

 

[allsmiles]

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

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

that could be argued to be arrogant.

 

[fool]

Your beef is with Zakath.

Right now my beef is with you.
If Yaweh tells you to sacrafice your child to him will you do it?
Your previous answer was non-resposive to the question.

 

[Granite]

It was legal in Nazi Germany to murder Jews.

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

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