An object lesson

While I agreed with your post, I think it may have been focused on a different portion of the debate regarding general moral principles.This moves beyond Philosophy 101, but you seem well beyond that so I won't mind throwing it in for debate.Regarding Ethics/Morality there are essentially three different levels of discussion...1) Metaethics: From what do we derive our concepts of right/wrong? This may be answered in the universal (absolutes exist, usually given from some authority), or the relative (individual humans are left to create them on their own, from various sources).2) Ethical Theory: What is the nature of ethics? Whether from authority or from autonomy the nature of an ethical system may be deontological or teleological... which for those not up on the lingo means based on rigid laws of conduct or judging right/wrong based on outcomes of the conduct.3) Applied Ethics: How are ethical systems actually practiced? Whether deontological or teleological, there are going to be conflicts when it comes to apply them. They may be applied strictly or relatively.I believe the focus of this thread is the first point, and you are addressing the third.For example you used freedom as an example of a good in and of itself, then showed that in its application humans will end up facing moments where that absolute will conflict with itself. While this is true, it does not deal with whether freedom truly is a good in and of itself, and if so where we got it from.Being a skeptic I end up agreeing with crash's assessment of what metaethical relativism can be. Some may be "strong" relativists and believe there are no Gods and so we are on our own morally, but that is not necessary. It may just be that we have no way of knowing them if they exist, and so we must derive them on our own.I suppose your post was not surprising as you tend to skip the bs inherent in "meta" debates and cut to the chase of practical applications. However, I think debating the "meta" of ethics is valid to some point. Everyone just has to realize that in the end it comes down to the situation you described.Frankly I like "situational" and will probably use that term from now on when dealing with applied ethics.To everyone: Mac is better than PC? Agree/disagree?
(I'll bet that gets a more immediate internal reaction from individuals than abortion)

---

holmes

quote:

---

The source from whence we derive these absolutes seems immaterial.

---

Well see then you agree with the creationists... the source of our moral absolutes is not material in nature, and so cannot be from humans!Heheh. I agree with you that for all of these people saying that there are moral absolutes and they only come from God, we can't seem to find much agreement about this deity or what absolutes he has imposed. In fact it begins to resemble more of an anarchy then they claim relativism would lead to.Actually that last critique of relativism by absolutists kind of cracks me up. For all of the talk of how relativism allows ANYTHING to be okay, when push comes to shove if God tells someone to do ANYTHING it then becomes okay. So in the end, under a deity there is no such thing as absolute right or wrong at all. Rape and murder are just fine as long as God told you personally to go do it... or you feel you are fulfilling God's plan.

---

holmes

quote:

---

Why a believer is allowed to ignore the admonitions against judging others is another curious loophole that the faithful seem to exploit when it suits them.

---

Well yah gotta admit, sometimes red lobster is just too enticing... hey but them lobsters are red like Satan, so maybe, nahhhh. It's the gays, blame it on the gays.

---

holmes

quote:

---

I guess this is where I part paths with you...

---

Part paths? Don't you get it? You just sang my praises!

quote:

---

It doesn't become okay, it always was ok. God is the standard by which we can even begin to judge what is ok and what is not.

---

Exactly. But that is from a universal perspective. To humans it will appear that something was a moral absolute and then we learn it has always been okay... and thus it becomes understood as okay from then on.We are not saying anything different. I was merely speaking from a different perspective.

quote:

---

One must examine the context in which actions were allowed to occur. Surely this is a rational concept that a moral absolute is not simply "Do not murder". Perhaps the moral absolute is more likely, "do not murder for the mere pleasure of watching someone die". And then there would perhaps be another "saying do not murder for the mere pleasure of being bored". It should be easy enough to see that the final set of moral absolute truths is infinite as God is.

---

Eureka! This is truly the mother load. Thank you for showing how right I am, and in spades.Once you have a set of moral truths that encompass infinity, you no longer have a set. Thus absolutism (when attached to a deity) becomes worse in practice (and comprehension) then relativism.

quote:

---

While there are times when God commands acts that would appear to me immoral to us, why do we even have a sense of what is moral or immoral? Why should we assume that the morally correct course of action is to not allow the questionable act to occur instead of it being allowed to occur or even commanded to occur? In other words, if our understanding is imperfect(as I'm sure you would agree), then why should we assume at all times that we have a perfect understanding of what is the right or wrong thing for a supposed perfect God to do or not do(allow or not allow)?

---

Again, thank you. This is exactly what absolutism starts reducing to and so freeing everyone from moral control of any kind.Who is to say that lady that killed her kids to protect them from Satan was wrong? Maybe she WAS following the will of God? Who is to say Jones wasn't right for spiking the KoolAid with poison? Maybe it was just God's will to bring them all home?Who is to say the detectives should catch the serial killer on the loose, as maybe he is doing God's work of ridding the streets of prostitutes?Mmmmmmm, yeah. And who then is to say that maybe the right thing to do, is to allow relativists to do what they will? Perhaps (in our imperfect state) God actually does not give us any absolutes and is expecting us to derive the ability to live together on our own?Chaos is the true result of moral absolutism hitched to a deity, because there is absolutely nowhere to point the moral finger as the source, or the absolute.At least with relativism, people can point out that laws of action men have derived are not having their intended result.

quote:

---

Furthermore, if it is clear that we are not perfect in our understanding (Plato,Descartes,etc), how can this be possible if there is not some standard of right and wrong, or correct understanding or incorrect understanding(that is, something by which we can test our understanding to and conclude it is imperfect in light of)

---

This is where we part ways in logic. One does not need an a priori, or external, or objective standard of right and wrong to determine whether we are perfect or not in our understanding.Simply failing to achieve what we want, through our actions, gives us evidence that we are not perfect (with respect to understanding).And more importantly to the relativist, we can see what others are trying to impose upon ourselves and know that it will not work. It's just that easy.

quote:

---

For a self proclaimed faulty entity(man) to conclude that moral truth is not absolute in light of the evidence suggesting it is, is to be choose the less likely option in my opinion.

---

What evidence are you speaking about? Have you taken into account the moral truths of all other religions as well? Whose has the most evidence on its side?I am forced to add something here as well. You have been harping on how imperfect people are and so incapable of moral reason. And in this post mentioning that we admit we are imperfect.The God of the Bible states quite clearly that he is Jealous and Vengeful. If that is not admitting an imperfect state I am incapable of thinking any states more imperfect that he could ascribe to himself.

quote:

---

To deny objective truth is to declare an objective truth, that is to deny objective truth is in essence declaring an absolute truth.

---

To deny a particuler asserted objective truth may be to declare an objective truth of some kind, but it does deny all objective possibilities of truth.And I am uncertain what the problem is here. How is it inconsistent to state that the objective truth of the world is that either there is no particular "set" of moral values which exist, or man is not in a position to know them?That does not change the definition of relativism at all.Or perhaps I can put this better with an analogy. One can say there are no apples, without saying anything about oranges.You are equivocating between an Absolute objective moral truth, and an Absolute objective reality.

quote:

---

my position is that these moral absolutes are a direct reflection of Gods glory and grace. Furthermore, absolute truth exists because it is impossible for it to not exist.

---

Given your earlier statements regarding our inability to know whether God is changing his mind or not... and so anything goes... what moral absolutes are you talking about?And if an absolute truth must logically exist, which set must logically exist? Xianity's? There are many others to choose from and they can argue the same case you just did. Moreover Xians from different denominations will hand me different sets. Which set shows God's glory and why?

---

holmes

It looks like there were a couple of misunderstandings. In part I did not make clear when I was discussing metaethics specifically, and when I was showing that an inability to even construct an ethic (regardless of practicing one) reflects on the reality of an absolute metaethic.I'll try to be more clear in this post.

quote:

---

Any mathematician will inform you that this is simply a false statement. Have I misunderstood you?

---

We are not discussing mathematics, especially theoretical mathematics which can allow for a concept like infinity to be grouped in a set of abstract numbers.We are discussing morality. Inherent to the concept of moral laws are "allowed actions", and "proscribed actions"... moral laws separate one group from the other. By necessity, infinity cannot be a part of either set of actions or no laws exist. Or if there is moral law the only law is that set out in the Satanic Bible "Do what thou will, shall be the whole of the law."You claim that there is an absolute set of laws, set eternally by an eternal being. If you wish to maintain this position as a metaethic, then you certainly cannot say that everything may end up being allowed according to the infinite being that is God. You also may not maintain that humans are incapable of knowing these laws. The first removes from possibility the existence of an ethic at all, the second is an argument for moral relativism (the "soft" kind crash and I have mentioned previously).In my previous posts I have mentioned an additional problem. Because of human inability to actually access these absolute sources, or rather in constructing absolute metaethics and ethics so many different sources are cited as indisputable, the result is more chaotic than relativism. Absolutism empowers badly constructed ethics with an authority beyond the ethicist whom others must somehow disprove the existence of. Relativism lets everyone point directly at the ethicist and ask "what the hell are YOU talking about?"

quote:

---

that because of this absolutism is worse in practice or in comprehension, and therefore relativism is more likely. While something might be harder to comprehend, this does not prove that the simpler construct is more valid or more likely.

---

Yeah, I was not trying to say a simpler construct is more likely than a complex one. The part you were replying to was kind of a throwaway observation that the result of tying a deity to an absolute moral ethic, was to make the construction and practice of such an ethic near impossible, and (worse than any relative ethic) impossible to argue against. The ethicist becomes immune to calls to rational behavior because rationality itself is not needed, only obedience, and whatever voice is in this person's head may have to be obeyed.Relativism demands more than obedience. It actually calls on a person to have some amount of rationality to construct and operate their ethic. It is true that people may be free not to create any ethic at all, but a near identical condition exists even under the absolutist scheme.I will add though, that the fact that an no absolute ethic has ever worked for everyone (leading at best to oppression), tends to suggest that perhaps none exists. Or if one existed, who the hell should care if the result is worse than the not having a unified code at all?

quote:

---

I concede that there are real problems that can be addressed when dealing with the application of these moral truths. The question this begins to examine is whether or not there is some absolute moral entity responsible for deciding what a moral absolute is or isnt.

---

Again the focus was supposed to be on creation of an ethic, not just on how to apply it. I am sorry that my wording was not clear on this point.I posit to you that if an absolute ethic cannot be constructed, or must be constructed on an ad hoc basis do to the nature of the deity, this renders moot any question of whether an absolute moral authority exists and what its laws are.

quote:

---

Does it not follow that if an absolute moral truth exists, then there is something which governs what this truth is?... Rather it is evidence that God does in fact exist and that He is the standard of moral absolute truth.

---

No. You cannot make this argument as it is circular. A metaethic comes before an ethic and so the absolute authority must exist before the ethic.You cannot work backward and say there is an absolute ethic, which proves that there is a God, when what you are trying to prove in the first place is that there is an absolute ethic set by God.If you want to prove God based on the existence of an absolute set of ethics (which we all must agree exists), because it is self-evident he is their creator, that is fine.Unfortunately for this argument we do not live in a world where an absolute ethic is agreed upon to exist, and (even less) that those ethics are from a specific deity.In this thread, if it deals with metaethics, you must start from the existence of your deity separate from the existence of his laws. Or if you are more interested in arguing for absolute laws, regardless of deity, then you must discuss the existence of absolutes separate from appeals to a deity.

quote:

---

Now to address your situational ethics

---

I was not dealing with the application of ethics, but I understand why it looked that way. My real point was to get at that there was no ethic we could understand at all. If there are absolutes, what are they?Absolute ethicists who use a deity, often fall into an ad hoc style of reasoning which results in no absolute ethical positions at all. We cannot assemble them because in the end the rules vary by the nature of the deity... which may vary.This comes before the problems of having to apply those resulting ethics to any situation.Otherwise I had no real problem with you answer to how you end up having to apply them.

quote:

---

I am much more concerned with what the existance of an absolute moral truth implies (or does not imply).

---

This is working backwards and you cannot really do this. At least you cannot in the form that you are doing. You make statements regarding God (his perfection etc etc) which allow us to understand how the laws must be shaped, and then make statements regarding the laws themselves to prove that there is a God. You must pick a point to begin and stick with that course.In this thread it seem more appropriate to prove God first (without using morality) and then move on to what his moral laws must be.

quote:

---

You do have a sense of right and wrong as do I. This is evidence that there exists something called morality. The absolute nature of morality follows because it is reasonable to assume that there is a standard by which we measure our moral judgements by.

---

You make too large a leap in this paragragh. While this does show there is something called morality, the fact that all of us differ on what right and wrong is argues that it is relative and NOT absolute.When I construct my ethic, I in no sense look toward some universal ethic and see how close to it I can get, and then get upset if it falls short. There may be common ethical positions which many incorporate into their own, but almost everyone I know judges the common morality by their own and not the other way around.I mean, what absolute are we looking at and checking our own against? There are myriads of Gods and philosophies out their to choose from and most aren't alike.I would be one to argue that where most of us actually get or develop our moral beliefs is in the world of human interaction itself. We learn what we want and what others want and what we feel is appropriate for them and for us, in order to achieve those ends. The variety of human experience accounts for the variety of moral outlooks.A singular absolute moral code, would not tend to generate so many moral positions if we are all striving to match that one.

quote:

---

while their worldview can not give a rational account for their existance. For example, you have stated that it was wrong for God to ask Abraham to kill his son. Where do you think this sense of what is right or wrong comes from?

---

I find this oddly inconsistent. Well first of all I should say that I just gave a rational account for the existence of these worldviews, but lets get to the Abraham issue.You ask where did I get the idea that Abraham being ordered to kill his son was wrong, implying God did. Yet you then go on (beyond what I quoted above) to suggest that I couldn't be in a place to judge God's orders.What good then are his orders? If I cannot be sure when I am told "killing is bad" that "killing is bad" will remain true, then I am unsure what kind of an absolute moral agent I could be.I might add that if God ordered Abraham to carry through, you would have to say how wonderful that was. Just as God ordered Moses to slaughter defenseless women and children after handing out commendments that said "thou shalt not kill". The concept of moral rules in this scenario becomes cheap.

quote:

---

Do you not agree that it is possible that this is a good act in that it demonstrated for most of humanity that we can trust God to provide the sacrifice(Christ)? Or that He is faithfull?

---

No. To me it shows the same delusional thinking that went into the attacks on 9-11. There is no good in the world, once humans abandon peace and health in the name of following extremist demands of a deity. You say we all have basic concepts of right and wrong. Does this act of a God asking a man to kill his own son, and push him through that emotional turmoil, not make you uneasy? If I had an exampe of Satan doing the same thing would it not seem barbaric?Thankfully there are other religions that do not include such jarring conflicts between what I feel to be right and wrong, and the actions of their deities/wisemen. If anything this not only makes them more palatable, but if there is an absolute moral code then it makes them look like the more obvious choice as its creator.

quote:

---

Gods jealousy is not like mans jealosy in that man is tainted by wickedness. Gods vengefullness in a similar way. Not a man made vengence that is irrational and unjust, littered with emotion, rather it is a holy and perfect vengence based soley on truth. It is pure and good because God is pure and good and is the standard by which we measure such things by.

---

Satan's jealousy is not like mans jealosy in that man is tainted by wickedness. Satan's vengefullness in a similar way. Not a man made vengence that is irrational and unjust, littered with emotion, rather it is a holy and perfect vengence based soley on truth. It is pure and good because Satan is pure and good and is the standard by which we measure such things by.Vishnu's jealousy is not like mans jealosy in that man is tainted by wickedness. Vishnu's vengefullness in a similar way. Not a man made vengence that is irrational and unjust, littered with emotion, rather it is a holy and perfect vengence based soley on truth. It is pure and good because Vishnu is pure and good and is the standard by which we measure such things by.Zeus's jealousy is not like mans jealosy in that man is tainted by wickedness. Zeus's vengefullness in a similar way. Not a man made vengence that is irrational and unjust, littered with emotion, rather it is a holy and perfect vengence based soley on truth. It is pure and good because Zeus is pure and good and is the standard by which we measure such things by.Tell me how to differentiate between all of these statements without being completely abritrary or self-serving?I will only add that to argue that jealousy and vengefulness can be "good" as a basic property in anything, sounds rather absurd. Because it is PURE jealousy and vengefulness? Devoid of emotion? What does that even mean?Thankfully Lord Buddha and Lao Tzu set better examples by avoiding such emotions and teaching us how to avoid them in life, not that we will always be able to, but that we can strive to... like they do.Why are they not the creators of this perfect absolute morality? I don't even have to twist myself into knots trying to explain away how their jealousy is not as bad as yours.

quote:

---

Why do you perceive jealousy and vengence to be imperfect states for an alleged God to maintain?

---

Well, if that alleged God is jealous and vengeful then it indicates that he is unable to attain something. If a God is unable to attain something, then he is in an imperfect state. Now if you try to argue that God's inability to attain something he desires is somehow a state of perfection, then... well I'll probably just laugh.Imperfection in a God is fine with me as long as it doesn't claim it is the only God and that it is all powerful and perfect. Most polytheistic religions used the imperfection of their gods to mirror human activity and so explore the concept of virtues rather than strict right/wrong. I like that style much better. It does not involve so much symantic gymnastics.

quote:

---

While it is possible for God to change His mind, it is not possible for moral absolutes to change. Any proposed moral absolute that would change is simply not a moral absolute. A property of moral absolutes are that they are invariant.

---

I understood this. The problem is that it makes impossible the creation of an ethic, beyond "thou shalt obey". In hindsight I suppose that would have been easier for Moses to carry down, and not make God look like he keeps changing his mind.

quote:

---

In fact, Christianity does make the claim that these concepts of morality have been placed within man, reflecting Gods invisible attributes.

---

Hmmmmm, while Lord Buddha and Lao-tzu say that experience is what allows us to arrive at solutions to our suffering, and these are common to all, so the creation of morals will be common.Which of these moral explanations makes more sense?

quote:

---

Only God fully knows what this set is. We simply see sin-tainted glimpses of it.

---

So which is it? Do we see a real set of absolute laws, which means there could be a God? Or are we unable to see a set of laws, which suggests there is no God (or at least not one that sets rules)?I am troubled by a metaethic which states that there is a God and he has set rules for human conduct, yet created the world such that humans are unable to access those rules. This is made only worse by appeals to the existence of these laws which we cannot know, to argue for the existence of that God.This metaethic looks like it needs to be heavily reworked. Back to the drawingboard grace.

---

holmes< !--UE-->[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-06-2004]

You seem to be more or less supporting my position. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point?There are only a few spots where I have direct criticisms, though they are not really about the overall topic (absolute metaethics)...

quote:

---

If 5 guys out of a hundred see pink polka dotted bunnies, we could assume that they have a unique sense of reality. If over a billion people worldwide claim that Jesus is Gods Son and that He lives, we may still claim that they see it their own way. 1 out of 6 is better than 1 out of 20, however.

---

I'm unsure if you can really make the claim that more is better, it is simply more. For example at one time no one believed in Christ, then a very very few did (as opposed to overwhelming numbers of Pagans and nonXian monotheists), and even now Xianity is not the majority belief. If 1of 6 is better than 1 of 20, then what does that make 5 of 6?I might even point out that the specific belief of what Jesus actually is, even if labelled God's son, varies widely across Xianity.

quote:

---

why does God allow genocide in OT? Because the people who are getting wiped out have already chosen their destiny and are unable/unwilling to change. Thus, the mutation must be eliminated!...This is not mean. It is actually preserving the "chosen".

---

Three problems:1) In the OT God has children wiped out who have clearly never had a chance to choose much less made a permanent choice of what they believe in.2) Why must one kill in order to survive? I understand this may have been useful when much of the world was barbaric (which just goes to show Jews and Xians were never more civilized than anyone else), but if you really have an allpowerful God which can protect you... why not be like the Amish and practice Jesus' actual teachings?3) This is the same reasoning any madman can use. Hitler had his chosen people. Stalin had his. etc etc. Heck, Osama's God has his chosen people... I am a little perplexed that this would be listed as valid reasoning. Anyone that acts on such reasoning deserves whatever punishment they get, as what you are advocating is genocide.You've seemed pretty peace-loving in other posts. Do you really believe genocide is a good, or necessary method to keep an ideology alive?

---

holmes

quote:

---

My first thoughts, when He first spoke to me and confirmed His reality to me, were "Oh, no! I don't want to have to deal with this Person!" And I told Him, "I don't like You, much less love You. But I want to live, so tell me what I have to do." That was then. After I got to know Him better, it got better. And now, the ways He has that I (still!) cannot abide, I have some hope will turn out to be better than they seem to me. He didn't mind any of this. Just said, "I understand. Just do this, and stay in touch."

---

How do you know this is not your own mind? And if it is another entity, that it is not Satan?Why would you even want to continue worshipping something that is repellant? Just because it is powerful and grants your wishes? Or as you state, that you want to live?I would consider this moral cowardice, but besides that issue I do not see how you can differentiate between God and Satan. Just because something calls to you after you call for God, does not mean it is God that answers.

---

holmes

ae in post 100, imo, placed the most powerful arrow into the achille's heel of your argument.You do alternate between stating there is an absolute code, and stating that it may be unknowable. If it is possibly unknowable, this implies we do not have solid evidence now for its existence. That has the result of undercutting an idea you have evidence for an absolute ethic.Furthermore if an absolute moral code is unknowable, or even partially eclipsed to humans, then you have argued for "soft" relativism.I think you may be misunderstanding exactly how relativism works. In answering your post I will try to make this more clear.For convenience, we will drop the infinity issue, unless it becomes paramount to a point you may be making.

quote:

---

On a side note, I do find it interesting that a relativist would make claims on what can or can not be done. Is this allowed within your philosophical system? If so, please explain the justification. Are you not assuming some universal standard of truth exists and that by me suggesting these things it is violating that truth?

---

My comment had nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with logical structure of an argument.It simply wasn't logical to argue for existence of an absolute code (as a metaethic), and then say the ethic could appear as a set encompassing infinite possibilities. This is essentially undercutting any practical difference between ab-e and rel-e, yet retains the backing of a deity and assertion of absolutism.I suppose one CAN argue what you did, but one would be making a very poor case. If you want to be convincing then you cannot argue as you had.

quote:

---

For one, within absolutism, one does have ultimate authority to make claims of right and wrong because they acknowledge that these things exist and that there is a standard that can be worked towards.

---

How is this possible, when a deity may change the rules as we understand them at any point in the future? MMmmm, let me be clear about this... that a deity may reveal later on that what we thought of as absolutes were really something else all along?

quote:

---

Within relativism, it does not follow that anyone should make any statements of right and wrong because who is to say such a thing exists? If you say that the only absolute moral truth is To each his own then isn’t this an absolute moral truth in itself? In fact, within relativism wouldn't it be safe to conclude that everyone should do as they wish? Even harm others at times?

---

This is a common misperception regarding relativism. Relativism does not tell people that they ought to do as they will, it simply states that people WILL do as they will. The onus is on the individual to construct an ethic, and anyone observed working with an ethic is understood to have constucted it from a variety of life experiences.Absolutism, whether with a deity or not, removes the individual from the construction of the ethical system. While it may be revealed by humans, the ethical system stands separate from them. There is no variance and no appeals that it can be changed. With a diety, the set of absolutes is given by the deity. However a deity is not necessary. One can conceive of a disembodied (or uncommanded) set of absolutes of what is best in man or promotes health or creates happiness etc etc... which is good.Thus your argument that a set of absolutes does not necessarily indicate a God at all, much less one in particular. It may arise simply from our state in Nature. You can argue this state was made by God, but that is a separate argument which is unconnected to the existence of an absolute code.

quote:

---

I am simply looking at the final conclusion that relativism offers, namely no judgement claims can be made about anything with any authority

---

This seems more an argument from fear than of anything else. What logical reason would a judgement need a stamp of higher authority for it to be valid? What will an authority lend to a judgement that it will be followed any more or less than an individually or culturally derived judgement?It is my argument that those who follow authority have abandoned morality as a concept, beyond "thou shalt obey." Morality is the rule of laws over actions, Obedience is the rule of Authority over the dominated. One has no connection to the other.One should hope that if God created absolute moral laws, humans would follow them out of their perfect fit for human life, rather than because God demands it.

quote:

---

Furthermore, for the more complex issues such as murder out of pleasure, why is it that this is wrong (as far as we can tell) in every civilized culture? If a culture does agree it is ok, do you not agree that it still is wrong? If you do, then what is the justification within the proper confines of relativism? I would maintain that in order to be consistent with relativism, one must concede that if a society kills out of pleasure, than it is ok for that society.

---

I think it is self-evident (ie reality) that whether I agree with a society's moral codes or not, if they believe something is right, for them it is right.What difference would it make if I told them God said they were wrong, or I said they were wrong. At least if I said I thought they were wrong I could point out how they are being illogical or inconsistent. Or maybe I could bribe the guards to let me escape (preying on the weakness of personal integrity toward that society's rules).Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I decided to have an incestuous orgy with all my male relatives. I feel safe in assuming you'd think that is wrong. What would it mean to you if I said my Gods say that was a perfectly good thing? How did that Authority help my case to you, or in general?Can other communities judge the actions of a Xian community as right/wrong with additional Authority? Religious persecution as seen during the inquisition had the highest of Authorities on its side. But I would say that was wrong and many others would. Whose "authority" was correct?

quote:

---

Looking at a supposed society where this was ok - say the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany. This was allowed by the ultimate authority in that country do you think then that this is an ok thing to do EVER? This is the ultimate philosophical problem for relativism

---

Read what you said very carefully. This is NOT the problem of relativism. The killing of Jews was okayed by the highest Authorities... that is your line, not the relativists.To the relativist, while many germans felt jews should be killed, many did not. Relativists were able to flout appeals to authority and point to the actions themselves and try to convince others that the rules and the Authorities were wrong.It is true that I could not say the killers were wrong in the universal sense, like they offended the laws of the universe. But I can say in a very real sense that their arguments made little sense, and the actions of extermination would never produce the results they were hoping for. It was logically against concepts of freedom and justice, and so anyone for those should be offended by Nazis.What difference would it have made if I said, God said this was bad? There are plenty of Xians then and now that believe Jews are evil. Which Xian God is right? Which has authority?

quote:

---

So, while you have some evidence against the idea, surely you would concede I have evidence for the prospect of absolute moral truth. IMHO, the evidence for absolute moral truth, far outweighs the evidence against.

---

Evidence for the prospect of... That is so weak a claim I would have to say yes. Any slight commonality could count as evidence for the prospect of an absolute morality.But it is not convincing and I must disagree with that second sentence. Perhaps you have more to share?

quote:

---

however I still maintain that the evidence for absolute moral truth far outweighs that against. Namely, impossibility(or at least unlikelihood) of the contrary.

---

Mmmmm... still want to see some evidence. I think there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest absolutes are unlikely, though I will agree that there is no evidence they are impossible. If we add to the idea of an absolute morality, that it may never be completely known, then I think impossibility is written out of the picture anyway.

quote:

---

What other evidence do you have that suggests NO absolute moral law exists (besides mans inability to agree on what one might be)?

---

Actually that is a pretty good chunk of evidence. I am uncertain if there really needs to be more. It is that vast inconsistency with an absolute code common to man, which absolutists must overcome.I guess i can show how I come up with my own concepts of morality and not judge them according to some universal code, nor do I need to.

quote:

---

While this is not formal in any way, certainly one could produce a formal and academic argument along these lines. It is simply more rational to concede that an absolute moral truth exists.

---

I am being totally honest when I say, that in the argument preceeding this summation, I saw no statement I could agree with.While many may agree that the beliefs you stated are irrational, not everyone would. And I am wholly unconvinced that people could not come to such beliefs through self-reflection. What makes it more rationale to concede that such beliefs come from a singular absolute code?

quote:

---

Suppose however that man is imperfect and has a nature to resist these codes. Would we then expect man to reach different conclusions on what these truths are? I would say your conclusion is dependent upon man being perfect as the laws are supposedly perfect.

---

This appears to be inconsistent with your earlier stated theory. How can you claim that people are aspiring to the absolute code, and then say the reason they don't end up at the same result is that they have a nature to resist the code? If anything if it is man's nature to resist this universal code, you are making the argument that for men there is no absolute morality... just a list of moral laws which humans try to avoid in many different ways.

quote:

---

examine the teachings of Christ and do you still come to the same conclusion? In our limited understanding, yes we can see times when we question what God has done or the decision He has made. But everyone of these cases, we can see a greater good occurring can we not? If you look at these actions within the context of the God really existing and His teachings being true, then the few actions which at times are hard to understand become quite understandable. For every one of these actions are there not 100 other perceivable good actions or lessons being revealed?

---

Yes and no... by which I mean I have examined the teachings of Christ and come to the same conclusion, and no I do not see a greater good in all of these cases.The genocide ordered by God and commited by Moses, the jealous action of God to compel armies to rape and kill two sisters, the ordering of a man to kill his son, not to mention God's own action of allowing people to murder Job's family and slaves as part of a wager with the devil...I find much more compelling moral instruction from Buddhist and Taoist texts. And with them I do not have to feel fallen and terrible just for being alive.

quote:

---

Within the context of Christianity, these problems of vengeance and a jealous God do make sense. Within the context of other religions perhaps they do not. They are not contradictory for Christianity which is what you originally intended to demonstrate.

---

This is straight assertion. I was raised and educated in Xianity so I am pretty confident in saying it does not fit within the context of Xian morals, other than Xians ignoring whatever God does or says as something beyond human judgement.You will need to provide a much more concrete argument that God's anger and jealousy is different and better than human anger/jealousy, not to mention not a sign of imperfection for a deity.

---

holmes

quote:

---

While we may disagree on some theological issues or interpretations, I am united with you in love.

---

See this is what I don't get. Steve essentially calls most Xians liars and pawns of Satan, and has wholly rejected common interpretation of the Bible... but gets a big hug and kiss from grace just because they are both STATED as Xian and are for love?The ideological gulf between you (grace) and a pious Xian who happens to believe in relativism and evolution is much smaller than between you and Steve.I think there may even be a smaller gap between you and I, and I love love. Isn't the difference between you and I just some theological issues and interpretations?And in the end isn't the actual theology behind Xianity everything there is? Doesn't agreement on that mean more to you than just saying you're a Xian?As much as Stephen seems like a nice guy, I am astounded at the lack of response by Xians on this forum to the amazingly controversial interpretations he holds. They seem tame in comparison to accepting relativism and evolution.

---

holmes

quote:

---

I do not state that I am a Christian, I specically deny the title, and believe that to so accept that title and use it on oneself dooms one to some sort of fiery consequence.

---

Well grace seems to feel you are a Xian, and regardless of title you want, that would seem to be a good term to cover you.I think I am giving up trying to figure out what you guys think. It appears completely bizarre and arbitrary. Whatever floats your boats.

quote:

---

I have to pray a lot to not be happy that many people I have had dealings with are almost certainly going to Hell, or are actually getting their just deserts... I've got that one down OK. So, discreet is better than nice.

---

Mmmmm, okay not nice. Given your self assessment I guess I could come up with a better term than discrete though. I don't find your outlook on life very healthy, frankly bordering on pathological illness.After this I would love to have an explanation of how you can consider yourself interested in love (and to Grace: how you can consider Steve a brother in love)? The above seems diametrically opposed to a description of your interests in another thread.If this is absolutism, I'll stick with my own morality. I actually like people, and have hopes for those I disagree with, far beyond them getting toasty.

---

holmes

He said he is not Xian. If you agree with me that he is a Xian that's good enough for me.I would think you would be disturbed that he thinks people who call themselves Xians are headed for hell, but it's no sweat for me.Let me ask you this (and Steve can answer as well)... If someone came around saying that Christ was the savior, but in reality God was a female goat and that hell was for everyone that said otherwise, you would have no issues?To my mind that's about how separate you guys are. The only thing that appears to link you is one name (Jesus Christ).

quote:

---

It seems to me that this is a strange way of concluding that your own morality is much better off.

---

I was refering to his irrational hatred of others, not the fact that you guys act like chums (while he condemns you to a pit of flames). He acts like he is all for love and then has to choke back glee that others will soon suffer. Pretty sick as far as I am concerned.

quote:

---

Couldn't this brotherly acceptance of Stephen(and his apparent acceptance of me) actually be looked at as a type of relativism within the body of believers so as not to cause division or confuse matters more than they already are, since we understand that no one is perfect, only Jesus? What am I missing here?

---

Thanks for scoring more points for my team.

---

holmes

quote:

---

We will work out our differences, sooner or later, in the process both of us will have to repent, or change our minds about a lot of things. I like changing my mind. It feels good, and I almost define humanity by the normalness of changing one's mind.

---

Just think of how much fun you'll have eventually changing over to Methodological Naturalism and Secular Humanism.

quote:

---

I have done this in a culture that is big time into pornography, where girls and women are, in order to get money, gotten to do things that, were I to see my own daughters doing these things, would really put me into a rage. But, those women are someone's daughter! And I find it easy to generate compassion for either the father who has to endure this pain, or for the daughter who lacks a father who cares.

---

Seems you aren't very familiar with me, or my past posts. My gf is a pornstar. Believe it or not she even has a very loving family.See love IS good. And there is nothing wrong with physical love, even when it is not encompanied with tight emotional bonds.I cannot speak about what porn was like in the past, but I know from experience that modern porn is filled with many girls that love love and sexual pleasure. They are not "made" to do anything, and they do it for free as much as for money. In fact, girls are making their own for themselves.Couples are also getting into the act. Some of them are married and do not have sex with anyone else. They just like to show how wonderful sex and love can be.

quote:

---

So, I consider those who put up the money that gets the whole business started, and keeps it going. Any Hell I can imagine is too good for them, actually. "How long, Oh, Lord?"

---

Even for the loving married couples that make their own movies?I really love that last sentence of yours. You find people that enjoy physical pleasure as so horrible that you enjoy the thoughts of their cruel torture. That sounds pretty sick and Satanic to me.Love is good Steve. Torture, hatred, and intolerance is bad.

quote:

---

The ontological reality of Satan makes "the road to Hell" be "paved with good intentions." It's a part of Satan's effort to make you miserable to have you earnestly want to make someone happier, try to do so, then have your efforts cause them incomparable pain. "What have I done?" we anquish when that happens. I hate it when that happens to me, but I understand that there's a lot of that in Hell. Which is why I'm taking no chances of going there.

---

How about wishing and enjoying the wishing of other people into hell, all for the best intentions of course?As you have stated you hope me and my gf are going to hell, I can only respond by hoping at least oneor more of your daughters end up in porn. Maybe then you will come to realize there is no reason to hate those involved. That maybe if love is good, giving physical pleasure is not worthy of eternal torture.And of course changing your mind will make you feel better.

---

holmes

quote:

---

I suppose this may be a purely natural instinct, based on the stress adaptational biologists place on reproductive fitness.

---

You are wrong. There are already two threads which touch on this subject, one dealing with this specifically in the free for all area. The one that is specific is "evolution of sex=love".Inside you will find ample evidence that disputes your position. If you have something to add on this subject, please go to those threads.

quote:

---

But it's the creeps who buy the stuff that I despise, not the actors. The poor actors are mostly just trying to make a buck. If nobody paid them, hardly any of this would be happening.

---

Well we buy it too so I guess that makes us creeps. While I am not about to say that everyone in the porn BUSINESS has no monetary interest, the idea that the only reason people create visual depictions of sexual acts is money is patently ridiculous.Sexuality and erotica are powerful drives in art, and have been throughout history, even when money had no part to play in their creation. Once the ability to photograph human sexuality became a possibility, the desire to do so ran just as high and natural as those capturing it visually in other forms.

quote:

---

First such case I've ever heard of.

---

Have you ever really kept your ear out for positive statements regarding porn? Let's see... Jenna Jameson's father supports her career. Seymour Butts' mom not only supports his career, she is part of his company (there is a reality tv show about his company). All of us positive examples may not be the only people in porn, but we are certainly not alone. And our "kind" is actually growing as people realize that there is no reason to be upset by depictions of human sexuality.It beats the hell out of all the murder tv and movies have been shoveling into the public consciousness for years.

quote:

---

But, I suppose that a pornographer who could be trusted, who only sold pornography where the stars involved could show that their parents or families were happy with their profession, would have customers that I would be at peace with.

---

Well this is a bit stringent. How many parents enjoy what professions their kids end up going into. But I do agree that porn producers should practice a strong ethic of only employing models that are interested in sexual expression, and not exploiting those who are against porn but willing to do it out of desperation.

quote:

---

but for those who pay them to invest their lives so unfruitfully.

---

Unless a girl is getting ripped off, she can make good money (much better than working retail) and even move into other careers they wouldn't have been able to afford otherwise. Many put themselves through college this way. It beats scrubbing dishes, for those that are sex positive.

quote:

---

He reminded me that He only mentions three women

---

I stand by my assessment that the Bible contains more mysogynistic ideas and degrading messages about women than any sexual image (meant for pleasure) could ever have.

---

holmes

You missed the point of my example (perhaps my goat thing was too esoteric it distracted from my point) so I will create another one which you can address more directly. Unfortunately it is a real one.Last night I watched a documentary on Nazis in America. There is a real Xian reverend who believes that Hitler is another prophet of God and that Xians must unite to rid the world of all lower peoples.He sees no disjunction between the messages of Christ and Hitler.And since he is a Xian does believe in being saved through Christ.So do you and Grace find this man a brother in love and Christ and in some way practice the same religion, with the exception you'd have to work out a few differences over time?

---

holmes

quote:

---

I asked God about Grace2u, and got affirmation. I ask about this guy, and get a different response.

---

??? So it all comes down to individual conversations with god to sort these things out, between Xians?

---

holmes