Objective Moral Values

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Vangelovski
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2008
    • 8531

    #31
    Originally posted by osiris View Post
    You really are scraping the barrel now vangelovski its you who doesn't want an honest debate on where human value systems originate
    Noone is claiming that humans do not develop their own subjective moral values - i.e., the Nazi's. But to claim that objective moral values do not exist, as you have done, is to open up the moral questions that I have posed. The fact remains that if objective moral values do not exist, then murder and child abuse are neither good nor evil, because morals would be valueless, based soley on the subjective view of each person.
    Last edited by Vangelovski; 02-23-2011, 12:19 AM.
    If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

    The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

    Comment

    • Onur
      Senior Member
      • Apr 2010
      • 2389

      #32
      I think some of you think like secularism means the suppression of religion. This is what manipulators of religion says and this is wrong. Secularism brings religion to the value it deserves. Jesus and/or Mohammed bring religions for the people themselves, not for the states. Without secularism, it`s impossible to prevent politicians/leaders to abuse religion for their needs. Religion is such an effective tool to manipulate masses, so it would be impossible to think that the leaders wouldn't try to abuse it. Secularism takes away this powerful tool from their hands and thats why these people are strongly against it.

      Do you really think crusaders invaded Anatolia and middle-east in the name of Jesus? or do you really think today`s extreme islamists really terrorize people in the name of islam? Religions was just a cover for political, or any material needs but never for spiritual reasons and it will always be like that.


      The religions are belong to the hearts of people, not to the parliament buildings, states and politicians. Secularism is the only way to provide this and i am sure Jesus also would like it to be this way because afaik, manipulating people by abusing religious thoughts is also one of major sins.

      Comment

      • Daniel the Great
        Senior Member
        • Nov 2009
        • 1084

        #33
        All moral values have been established by God, without God moral value would not exist. The Bible promotes love, faith, happiness, friendship, giving and so many other wonderful things that are all moral and in the same way the Bible condemns hate, murder, lust, stealing and others that all stand for immorality. God exists 100%, without him the world will be full of immorality and chaos.


        This Christian guy is fantastic. Watch his videos.

        YouTube - Give Me An Answer: Moral Relativism & The Holocaust

        Comment

        • fyrOM
          Banned
          • Feb 2010
          • 2180

          #34
          Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
          If you don't believe in God, how then do you explain objective moral values?
          I don’t believe objective moral values exist.

          Noone is claiming that humans do not develop their own subjective moral values - i.e., the Nazi's. But to claim that objective moral values do not exist, as you have done, is to open up the moral questions that I have posed. The fact remains that if objective moral values do not exist, then murder and child abuse are neither good nor evil, because morals would be valueless, based soley on the subjective view of each person.
          The premise and conclusion are reaching…ie if this then it must mean that…not necessarily and not so.

          Your beginning with the premise of the existence of Objective morality and then using it as evidence of the existence of God. What if objective morality didn’t exist. Did God invent Do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you.

          Working from the premise that man is a social creature and needs people for both mental and physical existence then it can be argued the family unit is the first building block…guy loves girl has kids and loves and provides and protects for his family…but in reality marries the girls family and she his. The parents and siblings of the girl have a vested interesting in her welfare if the guy is abusive or neglectful of her but also if he isn’t than this family unit can probable expect support from her parents and siblings in hard times.

          The ties that bind are dynamic…as in this example the brother and sister may feel a strong bond but as each generation passes new close bonds are formed with other families until such time that the descendant of the brother and sister might have very weak bonds if at all. This kith and kin situation is human nature. Protection of the family unit is first followed by close kin the wider clan and kith. In order for a dynamic situation to exist any system requires rules of appropriate behavior. Some like to introduce God at this stage but did God invent Do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you or did man realise that it really hurts when the so called friend Fs your wife behind your back so maybe your friend would also feel hurt if you tried to F his wife no mater how hot she is. Man is intelligent enough to realise this and so are the foundations of moral behavior which through discussion we have codified some of these moral rules into laws while left others as simply moral issues. You don’t need God to tell you that it feels bad to be ripped off or have your food stolen in hard times…man just seems to learn this through childhood.

          Thus it can be argued the creation of moral behavior is the realisation of action and consequence leading to empathy for family members which is then extended wider and wider until we feel it is enough. We might feel a little for a brief moment if we heard of a train wreck the other side of the world or we might not but the close the situation is the more our feeling for the victims could be.

          We can surmise that the innate feelings of morality are attributed to God but are also there in the absence of an understanding of God. Some have argued this very reason…like the absence of understanding of our digesting food does not negate the processes of digestion as proof of God…does not negate God but following the sequence of logic I fail to see any proof of God or objective morality.

          On the other hand subjective morality can easily be argued as we have discussed above and in fact also the existence of its relative nature. Today we might frown on someone Fing a 12 13 or 14 year old girl yet in past times when people died by the time they were 40 to 45 marrying in these early teen years was the done thing…its all relative.
          Last edited by fyrOM; 02-23-2011, 08:20 AM.

          Comment

          • Vangelovski
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2008
            • 8531

            #35
            OziMak,

            If you don't believe that objective moral values exist, then you are faced with the same problem as Osiris.

            To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or evil independently of whether any human being believes it to be so. But to say there are not objective moral values is to say morals are dependent on what human persons think or perceive.

            If objective moral values do not exist, then we cannot make the arguement that what the Nazi's did was evil - for them it was good and so we must accept that their particular social conditions allowed it to be so. Further, if a pedaphile raped a young boy tomorrow, how, without objective moral values can you demonstrate that action was evil? You may subjectively believe that it was evil, but he may subjectively believe it was good. How can you demonstrate that the act is evil? If as you say, its all relative, why send them to prison? If this happened to your son, how can you argue that it was evil and that the perpertrator should be imprisoned, if as you say, morals are subjective and relative?

            These practices may not be conducive to human relations or the survival of the human race, but they in fact happen and without objective moral values there is nothing to demonstrate that they are evil.
            Last edited by Vangelovski; 02-23-2011, 06:03 PM.
            If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

            The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

            Comment

            • makedonin
              Senior Member
              • Sep 2008
              • 1668

              #36
              Interesting thread... I would have missed it...

              You Vangelovski, you say that I have to study exegis to understand anything.

              Well, Paul did not share your opinion:

              1 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.
              1 Corinthians 2:1-5
              You see, there is no reasoning, nor logic there. You have to read it as it is.

              Second, Paul was the founder of the "fools for Christ" thing:

              For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
              .......
              For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”
              .......
              For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
              1 Corinthians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 3:19; 1 Corinthians 1:21
              So, the worldly wisdom which bases on reason and logic is foolishness and non valid before God. He also says that the preaching of the cross looks like foolishness to those who are not predestined to be saved.

              Also, guess which word is he using here?

              Here Paul is using the word μωρια from the Attic Greek word μωρος which means foolish or dull.
              This makes it clear that he meant that his words are understandable for those with out much intellectual capacity.

              So do I have to go on study exegesis. According to Paul, his arguments are not in any kind related with the worldly wisdom, reasoning and logics. He is all about the power of God, the God that choses people according to his will, predestined before the creation of the world.

              Also, Jesus supposedly have said this:

              25At that time Jesus answering said, `I do confess to Thee, Father, Lord of the heavens and of the earth, that thou didst hide these things from wise and understanding ones, and didst reveal them to babes.

              26Yes, Father, because so it was good pleasure before Thee.

              27`All things were delivered to me by my Father, and none doth know the Son, except the Father, nor doth any know the Father, except the Son, and he to whom the Son may wish to reveal [Him].
              Matthew 11:25-27
              Do babes study exegesis? Are they full of wisdom, reasoning and logic? NO, not at all.

              And note, this heavenly wisdom and revelation of God is only given to those who are chosen by Jesus, to whom he wishes to reveal God!


              Hip Hip hoorey!

              So, do we need any Moral values. NO, according to the Predestination doctrine! Because:

              Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
              What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
              “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
              and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

              It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
              One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
              What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
              that it is not dependent on human desire or effort. The choice is made by God, to whom he will give his mercy!
              Romans 9:11-24
              Is there any eloquence, wisdom, reasoning or any kind of hidden worldly logic in the above passages? NO, there is not, cause Paul spoke straightforward with out eloquent words, as he self stated, and his reply on the question:

              One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?
              which is not even a answer and reminds me of your argumentation methods in most cases (So you in deed are moron of Christ!). He just go on saying:
              But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
              which is similar what the Church have been doing, namely burning people for asking questions!

              For more about this you can try and read Thomas Pain on Predestination.

              So, is there anything to be discussed there? NO, no place for exegesis. Exegesis, apology, and allegory are only tools of the Priests to cover the glaring fact of unjust Predestination doctrine and other unjustifiable doctrines of the Bible.

              By the way, are you fool i.e. moron for Christ? I figured out you are.


              And about the Moral thing. Well there are many other Religions that have similar if not the same or better moral standards. Also there are may non believers that cherished high moral values with out needing God or what ever absolute measurement.

              By the way, there is no such thing as objective or absolute thing. In this universe everything is relational and depends from situation to situation. Relativity is the reality of this universe, so objective morality is only a ideal which will be found reasonable by someone and obscure by others, depending of which cultural environment he is coming.

              But I will take on your first argument closely when I get time on my hands.
              To enquire after the impression behind an idea is the way to remove disputes concerning nature and reality.

              Comment

              • Vangelovski
                Senior Member
                • Sep 2008
                • 8531

                #37
                Makedonin,

                The question is objective moral values, not your pathetic attempt at EISEGESIS again!

                As for objective moral values, did you understand the question that we have been debating? Maybe you need to reread the thread, but in the meantime, you can perhaps answer this - If there are no objective moral values and all morals are subjective and relative as you claim, then you must accept that rape is neither good nor evil. You may subjectively consider it evil if you were raped yourself, but you could not argue that the perpetrator be punished, because for him the act may be subjectively good. What if your child was molested? How could you claim that it was evil and demand punishment for the perpertrator if, as you claim, morals are subjective and relative?
                Last edited by Vangelovski; 02-24-2011, 06:52 AM.
                If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

                The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

                Comment

                • Jankovska
                  Senior Member
                  • Sep 2008
                  • 1774

                  #38
                  Religion has always and will always be the biggest evil in the world, it should be forbidden. It is pure evil, people have died and carry on doing so in the name of something that is purely made up. The Bible, the Koran and the rest should be burned. There should be stickers on them saying 'Keep away from children' because they are the future and it is wrong to poison the future. Moral values, any values, good or bad, evil or not a person can build themselves. I mostly don't believe in anything, I laugh at most of those books but I am a good person, I take pride in loving people, I take pride in standing for myself, I take pride in helping an old lady cross the road. I think religion should be banned and I will always always work for that.

                  Comment

                  • Jankovska
                    Senior Member
                    • Sep 2008
                    • 1774

                    #39
                    Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
                    Makedonin,

                    The question is objective moral values, not your pathetic attempt at EISEGESIS again!

                    As for objective moral values, did you understand the question that we have been debating? Maybe you need to reread the thread, but in the meantime, you can perhaps answer this - If there are no objective moral values and all morals are subjective and relative as you claim, then you must accept that rape is neither good nor evil. You may subjectively consider it evil if you were raped yourself, but you could not argue that the perpetrator be punished, because for him the act may be subjectively good. What if your child was molested? How could you claim that it was evil and demand punishment for the perpertrator if, as you claim, morals are subjective and relative?

                    why are you dancing around and defending something that is EVIL? Hurting someody through rape or by punching them can not be good because it is evil/ We are all raised to make a cleat difference from what you should and should not do, stop dancing around like the western countries and play with words. Rape is not good, hurting a person is not good and in no way can it be good. Believing in a made up book that is mostly rubbish is not good either, it may be good for you coz you are blind but I was raised to stick up for myself and my own brain rather than let someone play tricks with it.

                    Comment

                    • Vangelovski
                      Senior Member
                      • Sep 2008
                      • 8531

                      #40
                      Originally posted by Jankovska View Post
                      why are you dancing around and defending something that is EVIL? Hurting someody through rape or by punching them can not be good because it is evil/ We are all raised to make a cleat difference from what you should and should not do, stop dancing around like the western countries and play with words. Rape is not good, hurting a person is not good and in no way can it be good. Believing in a made up book that is mostly rubbish is not good either, it may be good for you coz you are blind but I was raised to stick up for myself and my own brain rather than let someone play tricks with it.
                      What tricks? This is the question - can objective moral values exist without God. You and some others have claimed that you don't even believe in objective moral values, so the discussion has moved away from the original question to the question of wether objective moral values exist. But if they do not, HOW do you know rape is evil? If everyone makes up their own morals, how can you aruge that rape is evil? What is evil for you might not be for someone else. This is what subjective moral values and moral relativism is.

                      Do I need to keep repeating the same question? Doesn't anyone get it by now that they all believe in objective moral values regardless of how much they pretend they don't? The proof is in the fact that noone is ready to take moral relativism to its logical conclusion!
                      Last edited by Vangelovski; 02-24-2011, 07:30 AM.
                      If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

                      The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

                      Comment

                      • julie
                        Senior Member
                        • May 2009
                        • 3869

                        #41
                        Morals are taught by the family , not by God, and the society they live in. Taking the fundamentalists out of the picture (in all religions) look at society and how it has developed. Indigenous Australians did not kill/rape prior to white man exterminating most of them, they co existed with each other and nature.
                        The Tibetans are peaceful loving people, they did not shape their morals by God, they are Buddhists
                        My muslim friends have morals, they do not read the bible.
                        Society is bound by rules, laws and regulations, and most societies do not condone the vile acts of rape or pedophilia, morals are taught to the young by their family unit, and people are not shaped by the teachings of the bible, but by the society and environment they live in.

                        Vangelovski, this is moral relativism, and in that tolerance is something that is part of this, in what is your perception of the truth may not be someone elses perception of the truth, it is not absolute, but becomes judgement
                        What something should or should not be, is not objective, but subjective to your own belief system and sets of morals, and everything is relative to someones cultural and moral perspective , in their environment
                        "The moral revolution - the revolution of the mind, heart and soul of an enslaved people, is our greatest task."__________________Gotse Delchev

                        Comment

                        • Jankovska
                          Senior Member
                          • Sep 2008
                          • 1774

                          #42
                          Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
                          What tricks? This is the question - can objective moral values exist without God. You and some others have claimed that you don't even believe in objective moral values, so the discussion has moved away from the original question to the question of wether objective moral values exist. But if they do not, HOW do you know rape is evil? If everyone makes up their own morals, how can you aruge that rape is evil? What is evil for you might not be for someone else. This is what subjective moral values and moral relativism is.

                          Do I need to keep repeating the same question? Doesn't anyone get it by now that they all believe in objective moral values regardless of how much they pretend they don't? The proof is in the fact that noone is ready to take moral relativism to its logical conclusion!
                          Morals are created by society, people, parents, not God. Why don't you go and read my answer. Rape is evil as it is hurting another person. If you live in e society bound by basic rules, don't do to others what you don't want done to you, you don't need God. We feel pain, causing pain is evil. It's very simple, to most of us here. It seems complicated to you only.

                          What tricks? The tricks that it has played with your head to believe that that book has a word of truth in it.

                          Comment

                          • makedonin
                            Senior Member
                            • Sep 2008
                            • 1668

                            #43
                            Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
                            Makedonin,

                            The question is objective moral values, not your pathetic attempt at EISEGESIS again!
                            Calm down Vangelovski. I am clearing the field for what is coming now, because your favorite defense about Biblical problems is the "study of exegesis" argument.

                            So before I go on, I cleared the following things:

                            1) To understand Bible, you don't need critical reading, nor you need allegory, nor apologetics, but you can take the Bible word for word as it stands there, since it is written for fools to understand, not for wise intellectuals with Phd etc. etc.

                            2)At least Paul is subscriber to the Predestination doctrine. Predestination doctrine sets Gods power over Justice, cause God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and it does not matter weather twins who are not even born and have not done anything good or evil are going to be moral or not, he has his mind set and he hated the one and loved the other, with out the need to justify his choice why is that so, and that is because human being is not allowed to talk back and ask questions:

                            " But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?"
                            Romans 9:20
                            Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
                            As for objective moral values, did you understand the question that we have been debating?
                            What is objective should be subject of constant test and reevaluation, confirmed by more than two parties and than put to further test by others.

                            Than new observation is made, and reevaluated weather the morals that are set are good defined and valid. If not new moral set is going to be defined or the old improved.

                            Only in this way we can guarantee that something is objective and within the knowable true and real.

                            So the objective can only be than accepted when preferable all subjects have agreed upon certain rules which we call morals.

                            But basically, there is one hand rule that each can apply, that is: Pain inflicting is wrong.
                            Only in extreme situations pain inflicting can be granted, for example self protection.

                            But than again here we clash with reality and different subjects with different relative views will argue that they have the right to inflict pain, which drops us again into the relativism of our reality, and must be handled from case to case!

                            So absolute moral view can't be achieved, cause if it was possible, humans would have done this so already!

                            Instead many have tried to impose absolute morals or rules calling upon some supernatural subjects, which naturally is out of this relative reality and since it should per definition stands above nature is not influenced by the relativism of this reality.

                            However, this is obvious flawed, because we face so many religions that have different view and teachings but call upon the same supernatural entity as absolute measurement.

                            That only casts the doubt that all those religions are man made, specially when they favor one group over another.

                            That is so, because God can't be subscribed to favoritism if he created nature and the universe which knows no favoritism as well.

                            Closely looked, every religion is subscribing to favoritism.

                            The Bible in particular is telling us that Gods chosen people were Israelites.
                            Since Christianity is nothing else but Jewish sect, the favoritism is than virtually transfered over to the Gentiles through the doctrine of the Predestination.


                            Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
                            If there are no objective moral values and all morals are subjective and relative as you claim, then you must accept that rape is neither good nor evil.
                            So in the light of the above, I would say that rape or murder have became objective moral rules only through the evolution of human conscience and repeated reevaluation of given doctrines or rules.

                            Rape, murder and many other things are constantly reaffirmed by humans as objective moral values, cause they have made this experiences and many have suffered of it's consequences, so humans have reevaluated the given matter so it became a objective moral that we now have received as given, but that was not always like that, and certainly was not perceived always as such in history.

                            That this is so, you have only to look at the Bible for example. Different books look at the matter different, depending on when they were written, and what was the purpose of writing them.

                            The Bible that you propose as objective measurement for given moral values is full with stories where God did inflicted or ordered people specially Israelites to break those objective moral rules adopted by human beings, "just for the love of Israel".

                            One example would be:
                            1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
                            1 Samuel 15:1-3
                            The human morals set by convention calls such thing described above as genocide. God of the Bible does not have any problem with it, and even orders the Israel to take revenge for something which happened many generation before, which again contradicts some passages such as Ezekiel 18:19-20, which says that the sons won't pay the fathers sins, but the above infants surely did so.

                            Another word of God that was a command for genocide as well rape is this good example:
                            Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

                            15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
                            Numbers 31:14-17
                            So humans have reevaluated the given morals, so they set new objective morals defined by whole humanity, which were not God given, and this morals are now above those that the alleged God of the Bible held.

                            Another interesting thing is that for the deference of Biblical morals, the so called ten commandments are always quoted.

                            The Problem with this commandments is that there are two sets of them, the traditional that almost everyone knows, and the real ten commandments that are as only called so.

                            You or anyone can feel free to compare them and than we can discuss how objective this is:

                            Exodus 20:3-18 v.s. Exodus 34:14-28

                            Of course you have to click on the link above.

                            Only as a side notes: The Exodus 34:14-28 are the real ten commandments, that are identified as such in
                            Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

                            Exodus 34:28
                            while the Traditional are in Exodus 20:3-18. Many apologists have been avoiding this fact by making the one or the other to be the major and the minor ten commandments.

                            But in reality there are only one Ten Commandments, in Exodus 34:14-28.

                            Next, we can go over it and see what objective morals are to be found there?

                            What will also be interesting is the The Euthyphro dilemma, which goes like this:
                            “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”
                            Until next time when I have time to write.
                            Last edited by makedonin; 02-24-2011, 12:14 PM.
                            To enquire after the impression behind an idea is the way to remove disputes concerning nature and reality.

                            Comment

                            • Vangelovski
                              Senior Member
                              • Sep 2008
                              • 8531

                              #44
                              Originally posted by julie View Post
                              Vangelovski, this is moral relativism, and in that tolerance is something that is part of this, in what is your perception of the truth may not be someone elses perception of the truth, it is not absolute, but becomes judgement
                              What something should or should not be, is not objective, but subjective to your own belief system and sets of morals, and everything is relative to someones cultural and moral perspective , in their environment
                              Julie, leave the Bible and Christianity out of it for a second and think about what you are saying. If morals are relative, how can you demand justice if you were raped (God forbid!)? According to you, the perpertrator could believe what he did is good. YOU might think its evil, but he, depending on his own morally relative value system, may think its good. If there are no objective moral values, how can you demonstrate what he did was evil?
                              Last edited by Vangelovski; 02-24-2011, 04:37 PM.
                              If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

                              The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

                              Comment

                              • Vangelovski
                                Senior Member
                                • Sep 2008
                                • 8531

                                #45
                                Makedonin,

                                You can squirm around all you like, but the question YOU opened up is: IF OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES DO NOT EXIST HOW CAN YOU CLAIM ANYTHING AS EITHER GOOD OR EVIL. The example I provided was of your son being molested (God forbid!). If the predators moral values are different than yours and you accept that he is able to have his own subjective moral values, how can you claim what he did to your son (God forbid!) is evil? That would only be YOUR subjective view and not HIS!

                                But with objective moral values, the act is evil REGARDLESS of what anyone believes.
                                Last edited by Vangelovski; 02-24-2011, 04:38 PM.
                                If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

                                The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X