PGA Posted December 5, 2011 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 210 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/12/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted December 5, 2011 In the pre-1800 USA, slavery was permitted (as in the bible as well). That changed with the Emancipation Proclamation and the resultant civil war. -UF I've already mentioned, and if necessary can back up my statement, that your view of the type of slavery the Bible condoned was different than the kind of slavery practised in the USA or Britain during the 1700-1900's and in other parts of the world, such as Egypt during the Jewish captivity. "So a new king, who did not know about Joseph, came to power in Egypt. 'Look,' he said to his people, 'the Israelites have become much too numerous for us...So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labour...But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites and worked them ruthlessly. They made their lives bitter with hard labour...the Eygptians used them ruthlessly." Exodus 1:8, 11-14 See also Exodus 2:23-25 I can tell you that in each of the examples above, my definition of what is right and wrong had no part in the respective society's definition. I wasn't around in the USA in the pre-1800s, or in 1967, or in South Africa during the Apartheid era. -UF I was around in South Africa. I've seen what was done there and I know it is wrong. I would have no grounds for recognizing it as anything other than my own preference/opinion/feelings if God had not stamped the difference between right and wrong in the minds and conscience of man or if He did not confirm it in His word. I do not know that New York has the correct or incorrect view in allowing same-sex marriage. However, I see New York being more compassionate to homosexuals in allowing them to marry in their state than in California where it is prohibited. I see NY following the general principle of allowing its citizens to pursue happiness so long as that pursuit does not impinge on others rights. I see CA unduly influenced by a certain church's funds in prohibiting same-sex marriages. I live in CA, and I have chosen to work to overturn Proposition 8. I would like CA to follow the same general principle that NY has followed. -UF No, I know you don't know if New York is correct or incorrect outside of a conscious that is softened to God's laws or knows that there is a universal standard that applies to all mankind and that is binding on all mankind in which man will one day have to answer for, either in Christ or by each persons own merit. Correctness is a dangerous word. What may be correct for some may be very incorrect for others. -UF I disagree. It is either correct or it is incorrect. It can't be both correct and incorrect at the same time and concerning the same relationship. That goes against the very laws of logic that we need in order to make sense of anything. Here is a definition for you of the word correct: "to set or make true, accurate, or right; remove the errors or faults from" How can something that is correct be wrong? Used in a certain way, this concept of correctness, right/wrong, is a very useful tool to claim power that may lead to a dictatorship. Imagine how you may enforce the correctness of belief in the christian god, and the incorrectness for the hindu next door to believe in the hiindu gods. Can you see how a christian dictator will impose their will on the poor hindus in their society? You may even think this is a good idea. Imagine if the circumstances were reversed. -UF Again, you blur the definition of 'correct' to suit your points. It is either correct or it is not. I do not see homosexual as a preference. I see it as a sexual orientation that cannot be chosen, just as I am convinced that I have not chosen to be heterosexual. I support same-sex marriages because I support marriage in general. -UF Marriage has been redefined when the gay-rights movement pushed for the acceptance of homosexual preference and orientation. Before this the main (the only that I am aware of) definition of marriage was between man and woman. People go to extreme effort to make their views acceptable to the society they live in as a whole. You do not support the idea of marriage that has been thought of as its primary definition for most of recorded history. Whether you can understand it or not, it does not detract from the fact that different societies have different laws. I have provided many examples of this. Do you disagree with this fact? Do you think these societies enact laws they know to be wrong? Or is it more likely the case that these different societies have different opinions and values regarding different issues? Is everything right or wrong? Is everything black or white? -UF I believe I understand it better than you do for you have no concept of 'best' because best is the ideal and unless you understand 'the best' you don't know the ideal. Yes, we see laws changing which raises the question of how do we determine right and wrong with a shifting standard? Laws are subject to change depending on who rules the roost. I don't know what you mean by 'objectively' in that last sentence. Do you mean objectively in the sense that we measure change or that we finally arrive at an objective/universal standard for right and wrong? By universal I mean it in the sense of one that would apply to all peoples of all times because we have found the ideal. -Me I use the term objectively in the sense that we can all see and measure independently to arrive at the same finding of fact. In this case, we can all objectively observe changes in laws in the same society over time. I do not see any evidence that there is a universal standard. In fact, from the evidence we can all objectively see, it points to the reverse. There doesn't seem to be any universal standard that applies to all societies at all times. -UF If we can all arrive at the same fact or finding then how come we don't? It is because without God 'good' is subjective to each person's preference, which when translated means everyone does what they see as fit in their own eyes and there is no such thing as good. The problem is although you can think it that you can't live with such a philosophy. It cannot be justified with anything other than force, manipulation, falsehood and coercion. Thanks again! Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exaeus Posted December 5, 2011 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 39 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/30/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted December 5, 2011 Hi PGA, You claim to derive objective morals from God. Can you propose a method of verifying that these God-derived morals are indeed subjective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted December 5, 2011 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted December 5, 2011 Again the question comes up as to who is right? How can two societies that have contrary definitions on what is good both be right in their definition? It goes against the very definition of good. What you are saying is that those in power, no matter how they get there have the ability to impose rules and therefore whatever they impose is good and right for that society, even if it opposes the good and right of another society. Under such circumstances you have no moral basis to object to Hitler and his extermination of 12 million undesirables because by such reasoning what that society did was good and right by the definition of their leader(s). Hi Peter, Thanks for your response. Who is right is determined by the people in power. One society determines that littering carries a $50 fine. Another determines littering carries a $250 fine. Who is right? They are both right, limited to their respective societies at the respective time. If one society permits cannabalism, it is right for that society at that time. If one society permits slavery, it is right for that society at that time. What is good, but the subjective interpretation of what is right, which differs from one person to the next? What is law but the codified morality of each society. If one society allows its laws to permit genocide (a la Hitler), that is the moral of that particular society, and reflects what is acceptable and good to the people who abide by it. Remember, Hitler could not possibly commit every act of murder by himself. He relied on the support of his minions and the active and tacit approval of his citizenry (predominantly christian) to implement the final solution. If the majority in the society in which he lived viewed such action as bad, they would revolt against him (and some did). Why 'should' (notice the moral distinctive) what you consider right apply to what another people considers right? If Hitler said it was right then it was right for that society under your definition. 'Should' is loaded. It is better to see it for the facts that are there. Why was Hitler successful in his final solution? Why would I attempt to impose my subjective good on others who may feel differently? I would not. However, knowing that most of us do not live as hermits, isolated from society, there is some compromise. We voice our subjective differences to determine what the cumulative laws of our society will be. In my particular society, I vote for various representatives, and several issues via direct referendum. No god/s are required in this process. Generally, I hope that we have evolved enough to recognize the importance of what Confucius recognized in 500 BCE: Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself. If we all approached treating others this way, I think we would be very happy. The pursuit of happiness defined by whom? Who gets to say what should be permissible unless there is a definite standard that defines what happiness is? Again, I think you are equating/confusing pleasure to happiness. Each individual determines what happiness is for himself/herself. The particular society in which an individual lives, determines what is permissible and what is not in their laws. No, there is no definite standard of what happiness means. No, there is no definite standard of what laws are proper. Different societies have different laws. People usually tend to gravitate to the societies that have laws that coincide with their perspective of what is permissible. Example: Since Proposition 8, many homosexual couples looking to marry have migrated to NY from CA. Regards, UndecidedFrog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted December 5, 2011 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted December 5, 2011 I am mistaken because you think so and because your thinking is based on your feelings and preference. If my feeling were based on the exact opposite feelings because of mere preference (which they are not - I have more than just preference that I judge morality on) then who is right? Are you always right? You are mistaken, because from my experience with people, the majority do not feel that homosexuality is wrong, as you attempted to claim. Again, you are confusing categories. I do not thing the human body is unnatural or that our bodies are different. I consider certain acts such as sodomy unnatural and what people do as unnatural. Is sodomy natural? Is it natural to use something used to expel waste for pleasure? Does the act produce progeny? You see, even in a naturalistic world-view homosexual behaviour does not produce the desired results of evolution (if there were ever such a thing), the promotion of the species. So you think that acts of sodomy are unnatural? Do these acts occur in nature? If they do, then they are natural. It is indeed natural for loving couples to explore each others' bodies. Even in heterosexual relationships these acts of sodomy occur. Waste-pleasure relationship is the same as the Eating-pleasure relationship. It is a mistake to consider that acts that do not produce progeny are unnatural. Consider couples who cannot produce progeny, do you think to forbid them to marry? Do you think to impose laws to forbid couples who are fertility-challenged from having sex? Again, I would like to remind you that you confuse pleasure with happiness and what is right as whatever one wishes to make it rather than a right to do something as a privilege. If homosexuality is a right, then why isn't polygamy, or bestiality, or incest between two consenting adults or even between anyone who agrees with anyone else to do something, no matter what that may be? If someone decided to let someone else kill them, and they consented in writing then by your definition that should be a 'right' too. In the society in which I live, these things are unlawful as determined by my society. I don't necessarily agree with these laws, but, understanding that I need to live in society, I accept them as laws. My personal view is that homosexuality between two consenting adults does not harm anyone anymore than heterosexuality between two consenting adults. Polygamy is the marrying of multiple wives. From my perspective, if women view this as an attractive lifestyle for them, let them decide for themselves if they are adults. We would have to do some tinkering with the legal benefits associated with marriage to equilibrate between polygamy versus 2 party marriages. Bestiality is sex with animals. I don't think animals have the ability to consent. Incest is sex with a near relative. Aside from the increased potential genetic consequences of consanguinous progeny, if this is between two consenting adults, I have no issue with it, much like how the daughters of Lot bore their father's children. If someone, suffering with the pain of end-stage cancer, I have no problems allowing another to kill them, if they consent to it. Is it the exception or the rule? Is it the norm or the aberration? Where do you draw the line to determine what is outside of norm? Is it 2 standard deviations? If so, homosexuality is well within 2 standard deviations. Homosexuality accounts for about 10% of the general population. The DSM does not view homosexuality as an aberration. No, I don't believe I do misunderstand you. It is both your definition and your societies definition that you are basing your judgment on. The problem I have mentioned many times is that you have nothing concrete to compare right or wrong to because you don't have a solid basis for an ideal. Something that constantly shifts cannot determine right and wrong. The bible is not as concrete as you think, as evidenced by your equivocation on the various biblical laws that you now consider as not applicable. In addition, you now consider that slavery (the ownership of a human by another) to be morally wrong, yet the bible permits it, and even have some laws on how you may beat your slaves. I consider this as evidence of shifting. I consider this as evidence that proves that biblical morality is not a solid base. I see the fluctuation and I agree based on God's standards that the right decision was made to allow mixed marriages. On what basis do you agree, someones preference? You agree today based on your god's standards that interracial marriage is allowed. However, just several decades ago, many christians agreed based on their god's standards that interracial marriages should be prohibited. So much for solid, non-shifting bases of morality. I base allowing mixed marriages on the priniciple of non-hypocrisy. Do I want someone to prohibit me from marrying someone outside of my race? No, I don't. Therefore, I will not be in favor of prohibiting others from marrying outside of their race. Do I want someone to prohibit me from marrying my chosen partner? No, I don't. Therefore, I will not be in favor of prohibiting others from marrying their chosen partner. Do I want someone to own me as a slave? No, I don't. Therefore, I will not be in favor of others being owned as slaves. Regards, UndecidedFrog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted December 5, 2011 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted December 5, 2011 I've already mentioned, and if necessary can back up my statement, that your view of the type of slavery the Bible condoned was different than the kind of slavery practised in the USA or Britain during the 1700-1900's and in other parts of the world, such as Egypt during the Jewish captivity. No matter how you attempt to portray biblical slavery as not slavery similar to the experience of Africans in the 1700s, you will not convince me that it is not ownership of humans. Biblical slavery is ownership of humans, and with such ownership comes the right to trade them as chattal for other goods and services in the open market. I was around in South Africa. I've seen what was done there and I know it is wrong. I would have no grounds for recognizing it as anything other than my own preference/opinion/feelings if God had not stamped the difference between right and wrong in the minds and conscience of man or if He did not confirm it in His word. Are you saying that the christians who supported Apartheid in South Africa in that era, did not have their god stamp them likewise? Why do you think so, if this is the case? I disagree. It is either correct or it is incorrect. It can't be both correct and incorrect at the same time and concerning the same relationship. That goes against the very laws of logic that we need in order to make sense of anything. Here is a definition for you of the word correct: "to set or make true, accurate, or right; remove the errors or faults from" How can something that is correct be wrong? LOL, you do not allow for differing interpretations of what is correct from what is not? How then must you view the christians who supported African slavery in the 1700s? Were they not following their god? How then must you view the christians in South Africa who supported Apartheid? Were they not following their god? How then must you view the christians who support the prohibition of homosexual marriage today? Are they not following their god? Perhaps you should consider that all christians follow their particular interpretation of what they think is their god's position on a matter. As evidenced from objective review of the past events, we know these interpretations to change over time. The view/interpretation of what is correct is dependent on culture, society and time. Different cultures, societies at different times will interpret/view one thing correct, while another will view it as incorrect, and vice versa. Examples: Prohibition of interracial marriage; Slavery, Apartheid; the Final Solution; the prohibition of homosexual marriage. What was interpreted to be correct at one time is viewed as wrong now. Take any of the examples I provided. Given this experience, how can any say that what they now interpret as correct is actually correct for all time? I don't think they can with any honesty. Again, you blur the definition of 'correct' to suit your points. It is either correct or it is not. Again, you fail to recognize the difference between ones interpretation of what is correct from anothers interpretation. You equate your interpretation of what is correct to be correct. That may not be the case. And as history has proven oftentimes, ones interpretation of what is correct has been shown to be incorrect. Marriage has been redefined when the gay-rights movement pushed for the acceptance of homosexual preference and orientation. Before this the main (the only that I am aware of) definition of marriage was between man and woman. People go to extreme effort to make their views acceptable to the society they live in as a whole. You do not support the idea of marriage that has been thought of as its primary definition for most of recorded history. I support marriage between two consenting adults who want to join their lives together in a committed relationship. You may attempt to redefine what I support or what I do not support as much as you want. It doesn't change what I support. Whether you can understand it or not, it does not detract from the fact that different societies have different laws. I have provided many examples of this. Do you disagree with this fact? Do you think these societies enact laws they know to be wrong? Or is it more likely the case that these different societies have different opinions and values regarding different issues? Is everything right or wrong? Is everything black or white? -UF I believe I understand it better than you do for you have no concept of 'best' because best is the ideal and unless you understand 'the best' you don't know the ideal. I find you have not answered any of my questions. Regards, UndecidedFrog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted December 5, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted December 5, 2011 UF I don't have time to address your whole post this morning so just a little note, the Project10, to market 10% homosexuality, has been largely disproven. If you do some research you will see the modern reports down near 3% homosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted December 6, 2011 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2011 UF I don't have time to address your whole post this morning so just a little note, the Project10, to market 10% homosexuality, has been largely disproven. If you do some research you will see the modern reports down near 3% homosexuality. Candice, I think you are misinformed. Project 10 is not marketing anything of the kind. They are a resource for the LGBT community that provides counseling services and health referrals. The only advocacy activity they do is: We also act as advocates for our service-users, to help them achieve their goals, including: finding affordable housing, finding employment, changing their name and sex designation on official identity papers, accessing sex-change surgery, being granted refugee status, staying out of prison, filing complaints documenting discrimination they’ve suffered, and more. I very much doubt this is any campaign to spread anything about homosexuals being 10% of the population. I think they got their name from that notion, but from their own website and their mission statement, they have nothing to do with furthering that notion, as you have claimed. Their self-definition: Project 10 works to promote the personal, social, sexual and mental well being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirit, intersexed and questioning youth and adults 14-25. Their self-defined mission: Project 10 works to promote the personal, social, sexual and mental well being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirit, intersexed and questioning youth and adults 14-25. Through advocacy and education, using a harm reduction approach, Project 10 aims to facilitate the empowerment of youth at individual, community, and institutional levels with a particular emphasis on supporting individuals and groups who experience multiple and intersecting oppressions. Services are free of charge, confidential and anonymous, and are offered in English and French. There is no marketing of anything in those descriptions. From their website, they provide mainly counseling services and health referrals as well as support groups. Regards, UndecidedFrog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGA Posted December 8, 2011 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 210 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/12/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted December 8, 2011 Hi PGA, You claim to derive objective morals from God. Can you propose a method of verifying that these God-derived morals are indeed subjective? Hi Exaeus, I don't quite understand the distinction you are making between the first and second sentence. Are you asking how does a subjective being verify that God is objective, or are you asking me to verify that the morals that we derive from God are not objective but subjective and you want me to verify that they are subjective, or perhaps that the objective morals we receive from God are subjective to Him, or is there something else there that I am missing? objective adj.1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions are there objective moral values?2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc. The Glossary of Religious and Philosophical Terms applies this definition: "In philosophy, the distinction between objective and subjective normally refers to judgments and claims which people make. Objective judgments and claims are assumed to be free from personal considerations, emotional perspectives, etc. Subjective judgments and claims, however, are assumed to be heavily (if not entirely) influenced by such personal considerations." What is the standard you compare/measure best to? A person, to have an unbiased judgment of 'best', would have to know the standard that is objective and outside themselves. To be objective that standard would have to be unbiased, free from prejudice. To be unbiased and unprejudiced the source of the standard would have to demonstrate a clear understanding of all things and have a knowledge of every outcome and not be swayed by emotional baggage. The source would have to understand what is real, what is actual, what is true. God is that standard, the real, the truth, and He has revealed Himself to us. Many people who read the Bible come to it on their own terms, judging Him instead of Him judging them. They come with their own baggage and bias, not listening to Him who made us, not taking Him for who He is and trusting in what He has said for this very reason; their baggage and bias. "Now faith is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for...And without faith it is impossible to please God, because those who come to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." Hebrews 11:1, 6 Are you certain of what you do not see? Are you certain that you know the truth, what the source of goodness is, how this world came about, how we came about, what is necessary for true knowledge, what is really wise? It all starts to unravel outside of first presupposing God, and not just any god or any idea of God. Start testing your world-view. How does it answer life's ultimate questions? Who are we? Why are we here? What difference does it make? What happens when I die? How do I know? You begin to realize that outside of God it is impossible to know what is truly objective. Take care, Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGA Posted December 8, 2011 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 210 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/12/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted December 8, 2011 PGA, do you believe slavery [one human owning another human etc] is immoral? If so, is that just your opinion or do you have some way to state this objectively? The type of slavery God condemns is the harsh, brutal kind of slavery practised by the Egyptians on the Israelites in Exodus 1:8-14. God reacts to that kind of slavery in Exodus by sending Moses to free His people from this kind of servitude and oppression. The type of slavery that was practised in the Ancient Near East (ANE) is something similar to what I would compare to an employee/employer relationship today. Your employee owns the time and kind of work that you are required to perform and in return to meeting this contract you are compensated for. It is an agreement that you enter into - you provide a service for a reward. You are indebted to your employer for the means he supplies in return for making a living for you and your family. In the ANE a person impoverished, hungry, without means agreed to become indentured in servitude order to provide a better life for himself or for his family. http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocan Posted December 8, 2011 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 13 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/06/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted December 8, 2011 It's a waste to reply to UndecidedFrog and viole. You can say: this person has proven 'A' but they will say that another person has proven 'B'. They choose to believe the evidence of one set of people and you choose another. If you present anything from God, they will reject it because they have rejected God. That is not a debate. Both sides have made a decision that ends all discussion. They are not interested in considering your perspective because they have already rejected the basis for it. Perhaps it is a form of mental exercise - trying to refute any claim that a believer makes. The point is, they will refute it, regardless if it's based on personal experience, research, the Bible or a scientific study. They are not open to challenging their beliefs. Perhaps it is similar to Christians that claim to have all the answers and infuriate or hurt people who are honestly open and seeking. They seem reasonable, intelligent people from the posts I read. Let them be and spend your energy on someone who wants to listen. Of course, it's another matter for topics which can be discussed... maybe who is going to win the next Melodi Grand Prix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts