Putting American freedoms in perspective

[Finch]

Here's the problem with this premise. Without moral authority, who's morals are right and who's morals are wrong? I can list an infinite list of things that you could judge as moral or immoral. I can then go up to some random person and ask them to judge that same list as moral or immoral. Most likely the lists will not be the same and therefore who is moral?

For instance lets say you believe murdering is immoral. We'll let I stand for immoral, M stand for moral.

You say: Murdering = I
Person 2 says: Murdering = M

How can murdering be both immoral or moral? It can't, it's either moral or it's immoral. It is either right or wrong. What basis does your morality over rule person 2's?

The problem with this is, who decides who's authority is superior? Through your own religion? Through society's accepted opinions? your own? Its not always black and white. Back and white is easy, but i think its more complicated than that.

 

[Outsiders71]

The problem with this is, who decides who's authority is superior?

It's not a matter of superiority but validity. I don't mind answering questions but it makes for more interesting debate when you answer back with responses and not questions. If someone were to tell you it is moral to murder someone, how would you determine who's right? What makes you think you're correct? Why can't person #2 be correct?

Through your own religion?

No.

Through society's accepted opinions?

No.

your own?

No. I've already told you, my moral authority comes from God.

 

[Finch]

I didnt answer because I thought it was self-evident. Of course its wrong, I beleive that murder in all forms is inherently wrong, but i dont need religion or society to tell me its wrong, because i already know, and those are my own opinions. To answer my own above questions, that would be
No, no, yes -for me

 

[Outsiders71]

I didnt answer because I thought it was self-evident. Of course its wrong, I beleive that murder in all forms is inherently wrong, but i dont need religion to tell me its wrong, because i already know.

Or you didn't answer because you have no answer. You still haven't shown why your belief that murdering is immoral is valid and that person #2's belief that murdering is moral is not valid. Stating that "because I already know" or I believe is not a good enough reasoning because anyone can say that.

 

[Finch]

I dont understand what your getting at. Your saying that saying "I believe murdering is wrong, and I know what I believe" is an invalid answer to your question. Do i need to say why taking someone elses life is a crime against humanity? Why would tacking on “because god/bible says so” make it any more valid? Because anyone can do that too.

 

[Clint]

Ay, dios mio! So many posts!

Atheists get their morality from society. Don't use the argument "Well most people are Christian in society!" because while the majority is Christian, the majority is ALSO secular. It's great that your morality comes from the Bible, but at the same time I could say your beliefs are immoral. See? Look at that! Neither one of us can be "right" in saying if the morality of another person is good or bad in simple day to day things (we can all agree things like rape and murder are bad). You want moral authority, and that's fine, but that authority can ONLY and I mean ONLY apply to the person who chooses to live under it. It can not apply to anyone else but yourself. Thus this authority has now... well it's lost it's authority. This is the problem I had for so long with religion. It took me a long time to realize that God isn't (or I should say my interpretation of God) is not an authoritarian. Look at the differences between you and I. We both have very different interpretations of the Bible and what sin is, yet we both believe the core stuff about Jesus (accept his as our savior, he died for our sins, etc. etc.) so what does it REALLY matter if we live different lives if we both believe in Jesus? And don't say I twist Christianity or I'm not a real Christian (I prefer "Christ-follower" anyway) since that's not really getting us anywhere. My definition of Christian = accept Jesus and that's that. And if there WAS such a thing as a "real" Christian (Which I don't believe there's a right and a wrong way to do it as long as you accept Christ) and one like myself, who'd some say twists it around and makes it up to fit my needs.... well wouldn't you say it's better than not believing in anything? I always had the opinion that the Bible isn't the word of God, it's the word of man inspired and influenced by God. I only believe the red words are the word of God But it's fine if you disagree.

I'm trying to be bipartisan lmao. Is it working? That's really my new goal now that I've quit smoking. Not to get so angry and passionate.

So, why are things like murder bad? Well, I don't believe this is a complicated answer at all. Because it violates one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Look at that! I didn't even need to pull out a Bible Why can't person number two be correct? Well, first of all is their definition of murder the same as the first persons? If it is, does person number two have any clinically diagnosed mental illnesses? If the answer is no, please see a second doctor.


ANYWAY, people just don't protest as much these days. I know I'm for one desensitized to all of this extremist bull crap. It's all I ever see on the news, and at this point nothing surprises me and I only hear the voice from the teacher on Charlie Brown.

 

[phissionkorps]

You're all wrong. I follow the Hawk.

 

[xvart]

I dont understand what your getting at. Your saying that saying "I believe murdering is wrong, and I know what I believe" is an invalid answer to your question. Do i need to say why taking someone elses life is a crime against humanity? Why would tacking on “because god/bible says so” make it any more valid? Because anyone can do that too.

I think you hit it on the head at the end. Because your opinion is only your opinion compared to saying the bible is the evidence and the foundation of the opinion, is how I interpret the line of questioning. I suppose you (or I) could say, "based on my experience in interacting in a global society I prescribe to the common notion that I prefer not to kill people because the world is more enriched with a variety of people and experiences, of which I would not want to detract from by eliminating the life of one person."

You're all wrong. I follow the Hawk.

I hope you mean the Jayhawk's!

xvart.

 

[Outsiders71]

I dont understand what your getting at. Your saying that saying "I believe murdering is wrong, and I know what I believe" is an invalid answer to your question. Do i need to say why taking someone elses life is a crime against humanity? Why would tacking on “because god/bible says so” make it any more valid? Because anyone can do that too.

What is there not to understand? You believe that murder is immoral. Someone else believes murdering is moral. Both your reasonings are because "I believe they're moral/immoral because of x" and you state your premises for either cause. That's called a contradiction, you both can't be right or wrong.

Well if you believe that there is a God, and that God's word aka the Bible is true, then morality is defined by God and not by YOU. Tomorrow God will not decide that stealing is OK it will also be seen as immoral.

Anyways we are getting OT here, if you wish to discuss this more feel free to PM me.

 

[Outsiders71]

I suppose you (or I) could say, "based on my experience in interacting in a global society I prescribe to the common notion that I prefer not to kill people because the world is more enriched with a variety of people and experiences, of which I would not want to detract from by eliminating the life of one person."

This is not some kind of trick question, but merely logic. You cannot define morality adequately based upon individualistic experiences/feelings. If you agree with defining morality in this sense you then also agree that other people are entitled to believe that murdering is moral.

This actually ties into the problem in Sudan because the people there are protesting for the British woman to be executed. They think it is moral to kill the teacher because she allowed a teddy bear to be named Muhammad.

 

[endparenthesis]

Here's the problem with this premise. Without moral authority, who's morals are right and who's morals are wrong? I can list an infinite list of things that you could judge as moral or immoral. I can then go up to some random person and ask them to judge that same list as moral or immoral. Most likely the lists will not be the same and therefore who is moral?

Where does the assumption come from that there must be absolute, cosmically-dictated morality? There's no empirical justification for such an assumption that isn't explained by the inborn inclinations of social animals.

If it ever becomes evident that there is such a thing as morality with a capital M, then we can start figuring out which acts are truly right and wrong. Until then we're forced to settle for our best attempts at a general consensus.

As much as we might want an absolute morality, it doesn't seem to me to be the universe's job to hand us one. Our desire doesn't make it so.

 

[endparenthesis]

Or you didn't answer because you have no answer. You still haven't shown why your belief that murdering is immoral is valid and that person #2's belief that murdering is moral is not valid. Stating that "because I already know" or I believe is not a good enough reasoning because anyone can say that.

Figuring out absolute morality with other human beings with the same social instincts can only be so productive. We're all looking through basically the same lenses.

So here's a hypothetical. Somewhere in the universe there may be sentient life forms who must kill each other constantly for the greater good. Maybe they breed prolifically and put the planet in constant danger of being utterly overwhelmed with them. Maybe there aren't enough other species left to use as food, and cannibalism has been acceptable for so long that it's now the norm in their society, and those who won't practice it are scorned. Lacking the willingness to kill has become taboo.

Maybe they even have a survival instinct that differs greatly from ours. Maybe they're somehow so socially driven right down to their biology that the survival instinct "switches off" in situations where they know their death is for the better.

Or maybe they're on the opposite extreme and have no empathy whatsoever (and could never be inspired to acquire it), so the idea that you could ever not be willing to kill another is utterly confounding to them... something they've never even thought of.

These entities are murdering each other every day. If you had contact with them, would you be able to fault them for it? Should biblical laws apply to them? A cosmically-dictated system of morality must include them too, unless God actually creates a different morality structure for every species (in which case even he's a relativist, it seems). If we could somehow be genetically engineered to hybridize, which laws would the offspring follow?

And is it moral for them to kill us? Or immoral for us to kill them? There are a thousand questions that emerge out of a scenario like this. And all of them seem to lead us down a path that makes absolutes start to seem simplistic and presumptuous.

There's a reason we all agree murder is wrong. We all have the same cognitive equipment. The notion that we should be projecting that agreement onto the universe itself is just yet more anthropocentrism on our parts, if you ask me.

 

[Outsiders71]

Atheists get their morality from society. Don't use the argument "Well most people are Christian in society!" because while the majority is Christian, the majority is ALSO secular. It's great that your morality comes from the Bible, but at the same time I could say your beliefs are immoral.

You could say anything really but what is the substance?

See? Look at that! Neither one of us can be "right" in saying if the morality of another person is good or bad in simple day to day things (we can all agree things like rape and murder are bad).

Wouldn't it be great if we could just pick and choose.

You want moral authority, and that's fine, but that authority can ONLY and I mean ONLY apply to the person who chooses to live under it. It can not apply to anyone else but yourself. Thus this authority has now... well it's lost it's authority.

I understand and never suggested that my views of morality should be applied on anyone, that wasn't the point that I was trying to make. The point I'm making is that as a believer in God, my morality comes from what He says. Anyone can reference the Bible and see my positions. In a sense it's transparent and is not self-generated or negotiable/changeable. If you claim your morality doesn't come from God or the Bible and instead comes from your feelings and experiences it's really not saying much. Morality is simply like laws. There's a difference between getting your laws from a higher authority and from penciling them yourself. That's all I was trying to point out nothing else.

This is the problem I had for so long with religion. It took me a long time to realize that God isn't (or I should say my interpretation of God) is not an authoritarian. Look at the differences between you and I. We both have very different interpretations of the Bible and what sin is, yet we both believe the core stuff about Jesus (accept his as our savior, he died for our sins, etc. etc.) so what does it REALLY matter if we live different lives if we both believe in Jesus?

Your taking this to a whole different tangent, the only question I was trying to provoke about morality is where do people derive it from. I never claimed or demanded that we must all follow God's morality to the tee. No one but Christ has lived a perfect life and everyone besides Him has fallen short of the mark. That doesn't mean as a believer that we should just ignore God's ideals and sin away, instead we should strive to have a heart like His. If you really love and admire someone, don't you naturally want to know and become more like them? The only difference in the interpretation between the two of us is that I accept God's whole word as truth and you choose and pick which parts are true. Yes Jesus died for us and we are redeemed through His blood but that doesn't mean we should purposefully sin, we are called apart from that. We are to be literally new creations, living new lives putting to death our old selves.

Romans 6:1-13

1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin-- 7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. 11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

And don't say I twist Christianity or I'm not a real Christian (I prefer "Christ-follower" anyway) since that's not really getting us anywhere. My definition of Christian = accept Jesus and that's that. And if there WAS such a thing as a "real" Christian (Which I don't believe there's a right and a wrong way to do it as long as you accept Christ) and one like myself, who'd some say twists it around and makes it up to fit my needs.... well wouldn't you say it's better than not believing in anything?

What else would you call it then? If I told you that I think stealing is great and that I do it all the time and that God supports me stealing, what would you say? As for is it better than not believing in anything, I'd say no. You're missing out on the new creation you're supposed to be because you refuse to put to death your old-self. You're relationship with God can't grow when you're constantly and knowingly sinning against Him. Jesus was so much more than a ticket to the after-life, He's for this physical life too.

I always had the opinion that the Bible isn't the word of God, it's the word of man inspired and influenced by God. I only believe the red words are the word of God But it's fine if you disagree.

The Bible is God's word, written down by human beings who believed and feared God.

I'm trying to be bipartisan lmao. Is it working? That's really my new goal now that I've quit smoking. Not to get so angry and passionate.

Actually yes . Stay passionate, just flee from anger. Congrats on quitting smoking! Your lungs will appreciate it .

So, why are things like murder bad? Well, I don't believe this is a complicated answer at all. Because it violates one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Look at that! I didn't even need to pull out a Bible Why can't person number two be correct? Well, first of all is their definition of murder the same as the first persons? If it is, does person number two have any clinically diagnosed mental illnesses? If the answer is no, please see a second doctor.

Look at Sudan. Do all of those protesters have some kind of mental illness ?

 

[phissionkorps]

Can we stop throwing English grammar out the window by capitalizing pronouns?

Do all of those protesters have some kind of mental illness

Yeah. People who think someone should be killed over a name of a teddy bear are mentally sick. I read a bunch of stuff about this on Yahoo news IIRC. I don't see why the British gov't has to tiptoe around and constantly reaffirm that they respect Muslims. Who the hell cares? People that act this crazy because of their religion and demand execution for a situation like this (which would be a total non issue in the civilized world) don't deserve respect.

I'm not trying to pick on Muslims or anything, but does no one else wonder why they're the ONLY ones that get this worked up over non issues? They also tend to be the only religion that demands respect. Instead of the Jews, who gained the world's respect by winning Nobel Prizes, bettering the world, and writing good stories blah blah blah....Muslims say "respect us, or we'll kill you!".

For once though, I'm happy to see some of the "non-extremists" take a stand and speak out against this utter stupidity and lack of logic/civility.

 

[xvart]

I'm trying to pick on Muslims or anything

I think you meant you're not trying... Whoops!

Thank you, Phission, for reminding us of that age old wisdom provided by Gold Five in Starwars: "Stay on target."

xvart.

 

[phissionkorps]

haha whoops. Edit time?
I had it in my head, and when I re-read it, I guess I didn't catch it.

 

[ktulu]

Ok, I am going to be very postmodern here; morality is constructed in reality. reality is constructed by the powerful. Why is murder wrong, because those who have power tell us its wrong for what ever reason. As for morality coming from god, who tells you this, in the bible, a book written by men, then EDITED by the powerful (Roman Empire). What does this mean about the morality set out in it, well that it has been modified by people in power. As I stated earlier morality is constructed in reality which is constructed by the power.

Outsider, If you want to discuss who owns the land in Israel pm me we can discuss it there as last time it turned into a huge debate that would be off topic. Now regardless of who you feel owns the land you can not justify the actions of Israel. Explain to me why those entire villages in Lebanon needed to die in the 1980's. Explain to me why its ok to shoot 11 year old girls for getting too close to a wall. Explain to me how its not a crime to bulldoze a Palestinian village to build a Jewish only settlement. Explain to me how its ok to destroy peoples lively hood because they are not Israeli. Explain to me why its ok to restirct movement into Jerusalem, a holy city for all of the religions of Abraham. Explain to me how its ok to ethnically cleanse people from the land you said was their country. Unless you take a completely morally relativistic position like I describe above you cant. Read the bible where your moral code comes from and you will find these things morally objectionable. How many protests have you attend that are against the actions of Israel? What have you done to help the Zionists that dominate the Christian church see that Israel is committing crimes against humanity? You ask where are the Muslims that need to speak out against the problems in Islam and I ask you where are the Christians speaking out against the crimes committed in their name?

Also you failed to address Christianities problems in their suppression of science and free thought and the call for the subjugation of women. You agreed that religion can be abused, with is true but how do you justify the fact that women are considered second class citizens in the bible, the highest moral authority in your opinion. Is it ok to beat your wife, the bible says its moral. Should women not have the right to speak in a position of authority over men, ie they cant be in the government, as that is an authoritative position, so no women mayors, congressional representatives, presidents, etc. Now please dont take this as a personal attack, I am just pointing out some issues in Christianity to show that all organized religions have this problem. especially ones that were started 2000 years ago.

 

[Capslock]

Any expression of morality is a reflection of the values of the individual. For Outsider, he has chosen to follow the Bible, for others it's a secular path. Usually, common sense makes up a good portion of morality. We fine murder immoral largely because we don't want to live in a society where we might be killed. Likewise with theft. Almost everyone agrees with these things. It's when there isn't a readily-identifiable rational basis for the moral claim that disagreements occur. And it's perfectly understandable that someone would object to being subject to a moral precept with which they disagree. Morality finds its way into law by virtue of a consensus (in a democracy) or by dictate (in an authoritarian form of government.) However, when this happens, one could draw a distinction between following the law, and being moral, even if the outcome is the same.

Even when the claim is made that a version of morality is "universal", as with most religions, it is still up to the individual to decide to follow it. And individuals really only ever make that choice when they agree with it.

Max

 

[Outsiders71]

Ok, I am going to be very postmodern here; morality is constructed in reality. reality is constructed by the powerful. Why is murder wrong, because those who have power tell us its wrong for what ever reason. As for morality coming from god, who tells you this, in the bible, a book written by men, then EDITED by the powerful (Roman Empire).

That is your misconstrued fallacy.

Outsider, If you want to discuss who owns the land in Israel pm me we can discuss it there as last time it turned into a huge debate that would be off topic.

And being OT stopped you from your above response ?

Now regardless of who you feel owns the land you can not justify the actions of Israel. Explain to me why those entire villages in Lebanon needed to die in the 1980's. Explain to me why its ok to shoot 11 year old girls for getting too close to a wall. Explain to me how its not a crime to bulldoze a Palestinian village to build a Jewish only settlement. Explain to me how its ok to destroy peoples lively hood because they are not Israeli. Explain to me why its ok to restirct movement into Jerusalem, a holy city for all of the religions of Abraham. Explain to me how its ok to ethnically cleanse people from the land you said was their country. Unless you take a completely morally relativistic position like I describe above you cant. Read the bible where your moral code comes from and you will find these things morally objectionable.

Once again you twist and turn things into a one-sided story to suit your agenda. What's the real truth here? Isn't it that all of Israel's neighbors want Israel destroyed? Regardless of what stories you make up the problem is two-sided.

How many protests have you attend that are against the actions of Israel? What have you done to help the Zionists that dominate the Christian church see that Israel is committing crimes against humanity? You ask where are the Muslims that need to speak out against the problems in Islam and I ask you where are the Christians speaking out against the crimes committed in their name?

I thought we're not trying to go OT here fella? I'm not an Israeli nor am I involved in any Christian-Israeli organizations or rallies. Are you deaf to the word Palestinians? This is almost the same nonsense that the Sudanese protesters are pulling, calling for execution and seeing nothing wrong with it. But OH MY if an Israeli army personnel kills a Palestinian who's shooting rockets into their city they're the bad guy. Get over it, Israel deserves the right to exist.

Also you failed to address Christianities problems in their suppression of science and free thought and the call for the subjugation of women.

Please spare me the nonsense. It's not worth my time.

You agreed that religion can be abused, with is true but how do you justify the fact that women are considered second class citizens in the bible, the highest moral authority in your opinion.

Second class citizens? They were created in the image of God just as man. Equal with different roles. Why don't you take a little vacation for a reality check to Sudan or any other predominately Islamic country and see how women are treated. They're not even considered second class citizens there, more like possessions or animals.

Is it ok to beat your wife, the bible says its moral. Should women not have the right to speak in a position of authority over men, ie they cant be in the government, as that is an authoritative position, so no women mayors, congressional representatives, presidents, etc. Now please dont take this as a personal attack, I am just pointing out some issues in Christianity to show that all organized religions have this problem. especially ones that were started 2000 years ago.

I'm glad you are passionate about your beliefs however I wish you would educate yourself first on the Bible before you try to explain it to someone who actually knows it. Everything you just said above is complete cow dung. However what should I expect from someone who has "Liberated Palestine" in his signature in Arabic?

 

[phissionkorps]