Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haggard Scandal
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 302 (361830)
11-05-2006 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Hyroglyphx
11-05-2006 12:10 PM


Re: absolute morality is all relative
quote:
The relativist makes their morals so low that an infraction of them is next to impossible.
This is not true. A relativist can have a high standard of morality and ethics. She just doesn't expect that her standards do not have any objective reality outside of her own beliefs.
-
quote:
If relativism were true, then everything could contain contradictory conditions.
This, too, is untrue. Moral relativism no more implies logical contradictions than the fact that the standards as to what constitutes a "tall person" are arbitrary implies logical contradictions, or that the standards as to what constitutes a "hot day" are arbitrary implies logical contradictions. Unless you think that there are absolute, objective standards for "tallness" or "hotness" that should apply to all people in all cultures at all times, then you can't make this statement.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2006 12:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2006 2:10 PM Chiroptera has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 302 (361835)
11-05-2006 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by nator
11-05-2006 6:49 AM


Re: Drugs
quote:
I can see how Robertson fits in that criteria, but I've never really understood why Dobson is so despised by the irreligious.
He founded Focus on the Family.
That's why.
That doesn't explain anything to me. What about Focus on the Family don't you like?
quote:
Who cares what they say? Millions of Americans, President Bush, and Carl Rove, and the NeoCon Leadership, that's who.
quote:And to think, they should be listening to the tirades of Michael Moore.
Huh? That's no response, you can do better.
You didn't ask a question, you made a statement. You say that millions of Americans listen to the Religious Right as if it were criminal. Somebody could just as easily interpret the rantings of Michael Moore as having influenced millions of other Americans.
You asked who cares about what Dobson, Falwell, and the like think. Can it be that you are unaware that the NeoCons in the republican party have been pandering to the religious right in order to win elections?
They share similar views. So how is that odd? That's like saying Planned Parenthood panders to the Democratic party. Of course they do, becuase they share the same ideologies. I would consider a more distasetful pandering of the Democrats to want illegal immigrants to have driver licences and allowed to vote, (even though we have to follow the law), just so they might be able to win. This nation is still very much red and the Dems need all the help they can get. If they can illicit the sympathies of illegal immigrants they know they can win votes. Its absolutely pathetic in my mind.
Well, if you voted for Bush, you voted for people who have imposed their religious views on me and my friends.
Well, if you must know, I didn't vote for Bush the first time. The second time I didn't want to vote for Bush, per say, but anyone else would have been a wasted vote. Similarly, here in Oregon I'm voting for someone I view as the lessor of two evils. I want to vote for someone else, but he's not going to win. If I voted for him I'd be throwing away my vote and giving it the greater of two evils.
And I don't blame Kerry for being irritated. It was a rather vapid thing to say to a serious man.
If he's so serious, vapid is all he can handle. We already know his sense of humor about his own military is about as funny as a swift kick to the genitals.
quote:
Nothing forces you to live as I do.
Oh? Can I legally get married to another woman?
I don't know. What state do you live in? That's for the states to decide individually. Aside from which, can I marry a little boy or girl? Can I marry my dog? Are the forces of oppression working against me? Should I run down the street, chanting, "Attica, Attica!"?
I thought Conservatives were supposed to be all about less government interference in citizen's lives?
Generally speaking. That's why the Constitution party was erected. They feel that the current Republican party has departed from some of its basic tenets. In that regard I would agree. I think the governments job is to protect its citizens with a strong military and infrastructure. I think the newly instituted Dept of Homeland Security generated alot of jobs. However, there are some federal positions that are just making the government bigger unnecessarily.
Why is the gender of my fiancee the government's business?
Its not. But what do you or he care either way, especially if its used for statistical purposes?

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by nator, posted 11-05-2006 6:49 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by berberry, posted 11-05-2006 2:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 234 by tudwell, posted 11-05-2006 3:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 260 by nator, posted 11-05-2006 6:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 262 by nator, posted 11-05-2006 6:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 302 (361837)
11-05-2006 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by nator
11-05-2006 6:59 AM


Re: nemesis_juggernaut's moral standard refuted by Haggard ... et al
Take them to watch abdominal surgery or a heart bypass operation and the reaction will probably be similar.
Being physically disgusted at the sight of blood and internal organs is not the same as recognizing when a person is being killed. The child may associate bloody knives with killing the wo/man on the table until told what surgery is. Can you explain little severed heads coming out of the birth canal as just apart of surgery?
Why don't you take them to watch a woman dying of complications from pregnancy?
You've mentioned this specious argument before which can only make me conclude that pregnancy terrifies you. Perhaps you should do yourself a favor and just never procreate.

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by nator, posted 11-05-2006 6:59 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by AdminOmni, posted 11-05-2006 1:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 268 by nator, posted 11-05-2006 6:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

AdminOmni
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 302 (361842)
11-05-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Hyroglyphx
11-05-2006 1:05 PM


ADMIN WARNING
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
Why don't you take them to watch a woman dying of complications from pregnancy?
You've mentioned this specious argument before which can only make me conclude that pregnancy terrifies you. Perhaps you should do yourself a favor and just never procreate.
You are treading very close to the line, nj. I suggest you back off from personally offensive pop-psych analysis and focus on supporting your claim of speciousness.
That line applies to everyone.
Don't respond here. You all know the drill.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]
    Trust me.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 213 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2006 1:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 215 of 302 (361846)
    11-05-2006 1:51 PM


    Haggard's accuser failed a polygraph test
    Does this mean anything to anyone here?

    Replies to this message:
     Message 217 by nwr, posted 11-05-2006 1:58 PM Faith has not replied
     Message 220 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2006 2:16 PM Faith has not replied
     Message 224 by Omnivorous, posted 11-05-2006 2:50 PM Faith has not replied

    Rob 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
    Posts: 2297
    Joined: 06-01-2006


    Message 216 of 302 (361849)
    11-05-2006 1:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 209 by ringo
    11-05-2006 12:17 PM


    Well, the point is... that our actions do not make a shred of difference. The problem with man is his heart. We are corrupt on the inside, and no outward expression of deeds can cover that.
    "...For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'" (Matthew 15)
    Some people are very good at putting on a mask and playing 'goodie two shoes'. Some are humanists, and some are Born of the Spirit of God, and all points in between. Others cannot cover the truth to save their own career (not that they should).
    Mother Theresa understood this, and said she would only go to heaven by the grace of God. With all her good deeds, she realized that she was undeserving of heaven.
    But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matthew 9:13)
    If you are a good and righteous person, then you will not go to heaven. If you cannot understand why, then you have missed the most important point that you can ever come to understand.
    And I don't have to prove it to you, for it to be true. Just as Christopher Columbus did not have to prove that the world was round. It was always round.
    So play your games Ringo... it doesn't bother me in the least!
    "A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading."
    (C. S. Lewis)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 209 by ringo, posted 11-05-2006 12:17 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 228 by ringo, posted 11-05-2006 3:04 PM Rob has replied
     Message 236 by tudwell, posted 11-05-2006 3:39 PM Rob has replied

    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 217 of 302 (361851)
    11-05-2006 1:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
    11-05-2006 1:51 PM


    Re: Haggard's accuser failed a polygraph test
    Does this mean anything to anyone here?
    It doesn't mean much to me. Polygraph tests are notoriously unreliable. And the report I saw doesn't say much about the particular test.
    I don't pretend to know what happened. The report that Haggard admitted purchasing meth from Jones, and hiring Jones for a massage, does mean more than the report on the polygraph.

    Regime change in Washington - midterm elections, Nov 7

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 215 by Faith, posted 11-05-2006 1:51 PM Faith has not replied

    Rob 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
    Posts: 2297
    Joined: 06-01-2006


    Message 218 of 302 (361852)
    11-05-2006 1:59 PM
    Reply to: Message 210 by tudwell
    11-05-2006 12:27 PM


    If our actions determine our 'goodness', then you got to admit... the do-gooders got ya'll secular folk beat!
    Are you sure?
    I'm sure... here's your response:
    http://EvC Forum: Haggard Scandal -->EvC Forum: Haggard Scandal

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 210 by tudwell, posted 11-05-2006 12:27 PM tudwell has not replied

    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 219 of 302 (361856)
    11-05-2006 2:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 211 by Chiroptera
    11-05-2006 12:44 PM


    Re: absolute morality is all relative
    A relativist can have a high standard of morality and ethics. She just doesn't expect that her standards do not have any objective reality outside of her own beliefs.
    If that's true then why do so many relativists object to absolute standards? How can they claim that its 'morally wrong' for someone to subject someone else to their morals if morals are tantamount to opinions? That stops the relativist argument dead in its tracks. You say, "that's not true," means nothing to me because apparently truth is just a matter of objective opinions. You are saying that it isn't rue because you are appealing to me to follow some sort of standard. If there is no standard, there is total chaos and meaning becomes meaningless.
    quote:
    If relativism were true, then everything could contain contradictory conditions.
    This, too, is untrue.
    Read the above statement.
    Moral relativism no more implies logical contradictions than the fact that the standards as to what constitutes a "tall person" are arbitrary implies logical contradictions, or that the standards as to what constitutes a "hot day" are arbitrary implies logical contradictions. Unless you think that there are absolute, objective standards for "tallness" or "hotness" that should apply to all people in all cultures at all times, then you can't make this statement.
    I already responded to Holmes in a similar vein. You are confusing pluralism with relativism. Being tall is a matter if opinion in most cases except the extreme; like someone who stands 7'9. And a 'hot day' might vary considerably from an Alaskan to an Arizonian. A sweltering day for an Alaskan might be 85 degrees. For an Arizonian, 85 degrees might be quite temperate. But surely you understand that there are absolutes, no matter the situation or circumstance. You cannot occupy Nepal and Zimbabwe, simultaneously. There are a plethora of similar arguments are irrespective of matters of opinion.

    "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 211 by Chiroptera, posted 11-05-2006 12:44 PM Chiroptera has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 221 by iceage, posted 11-05-2006 2:25 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
     Message 230 by nwr, posted 11-05-2006 3:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
     Message 239 by Chiroptera, posted 11-05-2006 3:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 220 of 302 (361859)
    11-05-2006 2:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
    11-05-2006 1:51 PM


    Re: Haggard's accuser failed a polygraph test
    Does this mean anything to anyone here?
    I heard that too. I wouldn't expect that man to be honest. I would expect Haggard. And whether or not the man embellished or not, does not cover up the misconduct of Haggard. The man, (sorry, I keep forgetting his name), has already stated that he came out with the story when he did to throw the election. He was keeping that in his back pocket in hopes that it would effect people's votes.

    "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 215 by Faith, posted 11-05-2006 1:51 PM Faith has not replied

    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 221 of 302 (361869)
    11-05-2006 2:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 219 by Hyroglyphx
    11-05-2006 2:10 PM


    Re: absolute morality is all relative
    If that's true then why do so many relativists object to absolute standards?
    Actually I have found Christians when pressed resort to situational ethics. For example try to rationalize "Love your Neighbor" and "Turn the Other Check" with supposed godly commands rape, pillage and genocide in the OT.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 219 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2006 2:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 225 by Omnivorous, posted 11-05-2006 2:52 PM iceage has not replied
     Message 240 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2006 4:01 PM iceage has replied

    Coragyps
    Member (Idle past 734 days)
    Posts: 5553
    From: Snyder, Texas, USA
    Joined: 11-12-2002


    Message 222 of 302 (361878)
    11-05-2006 2:41 PM


    Haggard's letter to the Coloradospringsians is online:
    Unsupported Media Type
    Let he/she who can read draw his/her own conclusions. I'm pretty impressed, really, especially by this bit:
    Please forgive my accuser. He is revealing the deception and sensuality that was in my life. Those sins, and others, need to be dealt with harshly. So, forgive him and, actually, thank God for him. I am trusting that his action will make me, my wife and family, and ultimately all of you, stronger. He didn't violate you; I did.
    Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 226 by Faith, posted 11-05-2006 2:59 PM Coragyps has not replied

    berberry
    Inactive Member


    Message 223 of 302 (361884)
    11-05-2006 2:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 212 by Hyroglyphx
    11-05-2006 12:57 PM


    We're not dogs, you moron!
    nemesis_juggernaut writes:
    quote:
    ...can I marry a little boy or girl? Can I marry my dog?
    Trying to keep up with which insults are out-of-bounds and which insults are encouraged on this board is dizzying to say the least, but I for one think this insult has been used quite enough and should no longer be acceptable. We are not little children and we are not dogs. Are you so stupid that you don't think gay people are capable of giving informed consent to a legal contract?
    This is one of the most insulting statements I've ever encountered. If this sort of indignity is okay, would a serious comparison of christians to crustaceans be allowed?

    W.W.E.D.?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 212 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2006 12:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 227 by AdminOmni, posted 11-05-2006 3:00 PM berberry has replied
     Message 244 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2006 4:26 PM berberry has replied

    Omnivorous
    Member
    Posts: 3978
    From: Adirondackia
    Joined: 07-21-2005
    Member Rating: 7.3


    Message 224 of 302 (361885)
    11-05-2006 2:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
    11-05-2006 1:51 PM


    Re: Haggard's accuser failed a polygraph test
    The reports I read quoted the test operator as saying the amount of stress involved made the results especially unreliable. There are good reasons why U.S. courts do not accept polygraph examinations as evidence, and even those who rely on them (FBI, CIA, prospective employers), use multiple-session results.
    Given Haggard's admissions, the polygraph test seems largely irrelevant.
    As one writer notes:
    Haggard even stopped in his car with his wife to talk to the media to say "how grateful" he and his family are that Jones failed a lie detector test ” at least on questions about a sexual relationship. But the expert who performed the test said the results could have been skewed because Jones was feeling quite haggard, with only two hours of sleep the night before. Jones will take two more tests early next week.
    No word on whether "grateful" Haggard is willing to take a test himself.
    So the polygraph process remains incomplete. If the accuser passes the next two polygraph tests, will that mean anything here?
    I did notice that some evangelicals have begun to blame Haggard's wife for his transgressions:
    Writing in his personal blog, [Seattle Pastor] Driscoll offers his fellow pastors "some practical suggestions" on how to avoid the type of temptation that consumed Pastor Haggard. And near the top of his list?
    "Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors' wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband's sin, but she may not be helping him either."
    Amazingly insightful pastoral care, yes? Better he should add insult to injury for Haggard's wife than keep his mouth shut and/or accept Haggard's personal responsibility for his own conduct.
    The infelicity of Pastor Driscoll being willing to "lean over the plate and take one for the team" is pretty droll, though.

    Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.
    -Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799)
    Save lives! Click here!
    Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
    ---------------------------------------

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 215 by Faith, posted 11-05-2006 1:51 PM Faith has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 233 by nwr, posted 11-05-2006 3:19 PM Omnivorous has not replied

    Omnivorous
    Member
    Posts: 3978
    From: Adirondackia
    Joined: 07-21-2005
    Member Rating: 7.3


    Message 225 of 302 (361886)
    11-05-2006 2:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 221 by iceage
    11-05-2006 2:25 PM


    Re: absolute morality is all relative
    "Turn the Other Check"
    That's what I wish my mortgage company would do on occasion.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 221 by iceage, posted 11-05-2006 2:25 PM iceage has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024