Moral Absolutism

[jeffnevins]

No offense to anyone, but do we have a font size cap on sigs? Thanks-

[Observer of dreams]

your welcome!

[Observer of dreams]

It is not the custom of our culture to learn how to fish, then throw stones at our friends to show them what we caught.

This means that I learned wisdom from God(learning how to fish), and I want to show you the wisdom(fish that I caught). We are all brothers and sisters on this earth(friends), but I couldn't get anyone who was without Christ to turn to God, or even consider him as a possibility. So I got frustrated and said hurtful things towards the atheists(throwing stones) so that maybe if I screamed in your ear you would hear the word of God(to show you what I have caught).

In other words I was happy when I caught a big fish from God. I want you to experience the peace, love and understanding that comes from God too, so I threw stones at you so you would turn and see the fish I caught . After that maybe you would ask me how I caught them, and I could share my fish with you. After you ate the fish you would say, "MMMM yummy I want these fish." then when you want the fish maybe God would teach you how to fish too

God gave me this saying and I learned that I was wrong. So I withdrew the hurtful things and smiled :)

Edited December 2, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[ethical.atheist]

Observer, what is your quote supposed to mean anyway? Why would anyone throw stones after they caught fish? And why would they stone their friends? And what is this even referring to? Your quote takes up a lot of page space, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

I figured it out. Well... after I recovered from it jumping out to hit me in the face.

Thanks for the change of font size! The cool part is that it is now even fixed in previous posts.

<- What the heck is this?

[billie]

It's someone puking!

[cjrose]

I blew up last night. I apologize as well. The truth and the hidden meaning behind my anger is that I am hurt when I hear someone doesn't believe in God. I get personally hurt and I took my pain out as frustration towards you. You weren't the only one I blew up at, I also made an awful topic that I edited to say something more important. God spoke to me last night when I went to bed. It was weird because I was speaking, but I wasn't in control of my voice or mouth, but I could hear everything, (this was before I went to bed I wasn't dreaming yet)

I was told "It is not the custom of our culture to learn how to fish, then throw stones at our friends to show them what we caught."

Here is a better answer.

God is neither moral nor immoral. He is illogical by human standards. Humans cannot be in two places at once, but God can. This is why it is so confusing to us. God is neither moral, nor immoral. He is all-knowing, and being all knowing he knows the path that will produce the best fruit, and will make humans the happiest. God is all things and nothing at once. My answer is that morality is totally separate from him, yet it is one with him as well.

I can relate about defending the faith and have had to apologize at times as well. It is our protective nature because we are in love with Christ. That's when I've learned to, for the most part, sit back a moment take a deep breath, meditate on the Lord and should I reply or not. What is it Lord You want me to speak on Your behalf. Sometimes it comes, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes we need to just let it be. But don't beat yourself up about being protective. It's a sign of great love in my opinion.

[Mitzva]

I think one can argue simultaneously that there are absolute moral principles and at the same time argue that it is impossible that all people in all states of affairs, will always observe (or be able to ) them. I think the existence of evil is what allows one to argue as such. Consider the poor individual who steals to feed her family. One can reasonably argue that an absolute principle against stealing exists (say in the mind of God, unless one argues that He is subject to the same principle...which creates a further problem) and at the same time argue that she was not justified and yet she had almost no other choice due to the evil state of affairs that obtains for her. Again, her stealing is contingent on an evil state of affairs that exists prior to her activity. Consider the state of affairs where everyone with excess gives to those who lack, do not consume more than needed, etc. Even better, consider the state of affairs in which everyone observes all moral absolutes, all of the time. Then, it would seem examples like the one given (a woman is compelled to steal ) would not occur. My main point is that moral absolutes can exist, while at the same time they can be impossible to fully fulfill because of one's enviroment (one in which evil exists). Her conditions do not justify her, they only show the extent that evil affects human society and those who live in it.

[ethical.atheist]

I think one can argue simultaneously that there are absolute moral principles and at the same time argue that it is impossible that all people in all states of affairs, will always observe (or be able to ) them. I think the existence of evil is what allows one to argue as such. Consider the poor individual who steals to feed her family. One can reasonably argue that an absolute principle against stealing exists (say in the mind of God, unless one argues that He is subject to the same principle...which creates a further problem) and at the same time argue that she was not justified and yet she had almost no other choice due to the evil state of affairs that obtains for her. Again, her stealing is contingent on an evil state of affairs that exists prior to her activity. Consider the state of affairs where everyone with excess gives to those who lack, do not consume more than needed, etc. Even better, consider the state of affairs in which everyone observes all moral absolutes, all of the time. Then, it would seem examples like the one given (a woman is compelled to steal ) would not occur. My main point is that moral absolutes can exist, while at the same time they can be impossible to fully fulfill because of one's enviroment (one in which evil exists). Her conditions do not justify her, they only show the extent that evil affects human society and those who live in it.

Let me make sure I follow:

Are you saying you can apply moral absolutes, but not all of the time?

Isn't this NOT a moral absolute then. ...Maybe just a good rule of thumb?

...and also that an unfortunate situation is so because of evil?

If this is the case, how do you tell the difference between well-meaning people who were ignorant to the problem. Is that evil?

What exactly makes a state of affairs evil?

Edited December 13, 2006 by ethical.atheist

[Observer of dreams]

Being immoral by ignorance is ok.

Gaining knowledge than continuing to be immoral is not ok.

So it is therefore safe to say that morality is an idea outside the human. They don't get to choose what is moral or immoral. They only get to choose whether or not they can justify their behavior

[Mitzva]

I think one can argue simultaneously that there are absolute moral principles and at the same time argue that it is impossible that all people in all states of affairs, will always observe (or be able to ) them. I think the existence of evil is what allows one to argue as such. Consider the poor individual who steals to feed her family. One can reasonably argue that an absolute principle against stealing exists (say in the mind of God, unless one argues that He is subject to the same principle...which creates a further problem) and at the same time argue that she was not justified and yet she had almost no other choice due to the evil state of affairs that obtains for her. Again, her stealing is contingent on an evil state of affairs that exists prior to her activity. Consider the state of affairs where everyone with excess gives to those who lack, do not consume more than needed, etc. Even better, consider the state of affairs in which everyone observes all moral absolutes, all of the time. Then, it would seem examples like the one given (a woman is compelled to steal ) would not occur. My main point is that moral absolutes can exist, while at the same time they can be impossible to fully fulfill because of one's enviroment (one in which evil exists). Her conditions do not justify her, they only show the extent that evil affects human society and those who live in it.

Let me make sure I follow:

Are you saying you can apply moral absolutes, but not all of the time?

Isn't this NOT a moral absolute then. ...Maybe just a good rule of thumb?

...and also that an unfortunate situation is so because of evil?

If this is the case, how do you tell the difference between well-meaning people who were ignorant to the problem. Is that evil?

What exactly makes a state of affairs evil?

If one continues on your thought line then a moral absolute is possible only if it can be observed all of the time. Why should that be?

Again states of affairs are evil if one is unable to observe absolute moral principles all of the time (this is in relation to woman who must steal). Again, an absolute moral principle can exist and yet never be observed....that is my argument. The two are not incompatable.