Right and wrong, Good and evil,

[Scuba Pete]

These are all virtuous things, according to your morality.

Now, how would you know what my "morality" consists of? Or do you merely excel in taking matters to the absurd in order to obfuscate the short comings of your diatribe? From all appearances, it looks like you stopped to think and forgot to start.

As Pah pointed out... the REAL problem is where people like yourself deem themselves smarter/more spiritual/better looking or what ever and decide to tell others whay THEY should believe. You are the problem that this whole thread is about. I won't try to tell you how to be an "objectivist" and would appreciate you not telling me how to be a Christian.

For a longer dissertation about not telling others what you think they should believe because you have made an assumption or twenty about them, you might check out www.GetAClue.com.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

You know, I have a novel idea: Instead of attacking my motives or my actions or my self-evident ignorance, why don't you attack what I wrote?

I haven't made unsupported assumptions; I quoted specific Bible passages and explained what I've said and why I said it. If my points are so shatteringly wrong that they warrant not one but two snide posts comprised of nothing but bluster, so patently incorrect that they can be dismissed by responses vacant of reason, then ripping it to pieces should be trivially easy.

You haven't done so. I can only wonder why.

Regarding Objectivism, you go right ahead and say anything you want about it. I am quite confident in my ability to defend the moral code I have chosen to follow. Are you?

 

[Scott1]

*** MOD POST ***
Since no one seems to be paying attention, let's make this a formal warning:

Stop with the personal attacks.... or I will start with deletions and warnings.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

I'm still interested in discussing this, if anyone wishes to address my posts.

 

[true blood]

Good is not a thing of perception. What is "good" in one culture cannot be "evil" in another and "virtue" is absolute.

 

[Pah]

I'm still interested in discussing this, if anyone wishes to address my posts.

Absloute morals imply cross-cultural morality without exception. It is better addressed as universal where a majority may hold the same moral point.

Good is not a thing of perception. What is "good" in one culture cannot be "evil" in another and "virtue" is absolute.

One culture advocates cannabalism as a spiritual practise and the same act is taboo in another.

The topic of the thread is not morality but the cause of biblical morality

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Good is not a thing of perception. What is "good" in one culture cannot be "evil" in another and "virtue" is absolute.

I agree -- though my standard for absolute morality is not a theological one.

Absloute morals imply cross-cultural morality without exception. It is better addressed as universal where a majority may hold the same moral point.

I think the claim being made by anyone who espouses absolute morality is that there does exist a universal standard of cross-culture morality. The differences in various moral codes are explained by errors in understanding or implementing absolute morality. If you believe in an absolute moral code, then you believe anyone who disagrees with your moral code to be incorrect -- in other words, immoral.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree -- though my standard for absolute morality is not a theological one.

Your standard for absolute morality is egoism.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Your standard for absolute morality is egoism.

Which can be said for MOST humans.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Your standard for absolute morality is egoism.

Yes, it is. Well, I may be premature here -- I'm about 100 pages from the end of Atlas Shrugged, and I've yet to fully explore Objectivism on the web before I decide whether or not I agree with all of its finer points (I would, for example, like to see its take on disaster relief). But I am liking what I've read so far, and I certainly agree with Rand's arguments in favor of an egoist moral code.

Which can be said for MOST humans.

Which should be said for most humans.

NetDoc, are you interested in defending Christian morality against the points I raised? I am still interested in discussing this further; if you are too, please describe what it is about my argument you disagree with so vehemently.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, I may be premature here -- I'm about 100 pages from the end of Atlas Shrugged, and I've yet to fully explore Objectivism on the web before I decide whether or not I agree with all of its finer points ...

You haven't fully explored the philosophy, you're not sure if you fully agree with it, you haven't even finished the book, yet you manufacture a campaign poster for objectivism as your signature. Why would anybody consider such conduct premature?

 

[Scott1]

Why would anybody consider such conduct premature?

Don't be silly Deut.... I just read the first page of "The Old Man and the Sea" and I've decided to become a fisherman...... that's what it's about right?

 

[1Lawrence]

Not at all. It goes back much further even to the earliest intepretations of the Bible. It is evident in the separation of wholly evil (Satan) from wholly good (God) and no intervening steps. An ascetic view could not possibly allow God to be a source of evil. But we know, from the infanticide and gencide commanded by God, that this is not so.

Antiquated - which now means I have another reason for my poor spelling. It looked right when I proofed it. My eye sight is failing? It also is indicative of pattern recognition where the correct letter may be substituted with another and the same meaning is still acheived - much like the "hilighted" in your reply. I read it is "highlighted" before I started this reply.

I'm laughing at myself - I hope you laugh at yourself too!
:biglaugh:

If you believe that God created ALL things then you must believe that God created all the angels as well includingb the "serpent that devours life". All things work together for good to them that Love God. Romans 8:28 :tsk:

 

[Pah]

If you believe that God created ALL things then you must believe that God created all the angels as well includingb the "serpent that devours life". All things work together for good to them that Love God. Romans 8:28 :tsk:

I recently ran accross a bit of scripture that says God created evil.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

The word "create" above is bara, the same word used in Genesis 1:1. The word "evil" is ra, such as in Genesis 2:9, "the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Some versions, such as the NIV, have unjustifiably softened the implications of this verse by translating ra as "disaster" or "calamity," although ra is used repeatedly throughout scripture to refer to moral evil. (See Isaiah 7:14-15: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil [ra], and choose the good.") But even if the "disaster" interpretation were allowable, the verse still depicts God as a troublemaker.

Whether directly or indirectly by creating Satan, God did it - or so he says. So this adds more fuel to the fire for "roasting" Christian ascetism.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

You haven't fully explored the philosophy, you're not sure if you fully agree with it, you haven't even finished the book, yet you manufacture a campaign poster for objectivism as your signature.

Because I am aware that it profoundly challenges a moral framework that, for most people, has been accepted without question, and I'd like people to ask those questions.
Because I am aware it is a controversial issue with a lot of potential for some really fun discussion... after the preliminary mud-slinging, I guess.
Because I look forward to people discussing Objectivism with me and, through those discussions, teaching me more about the subject from all points of view, not just that of its founder.

I like learning about ideas. Yes, Deut, even the ones that are obviously stupid. I like asking innocent questions about things that all the philosophy majors have Latin names for. I like that my youthful enthuiasm for anything new and interesting motivates me to talk about it, prematurely or no. I'm sorry if this irritates you... perhaps if you spent more time learning about ideas instead of stepping on them, you'd find the motivation to forward a point or two of your own while upping your sentence count to, say, three.

Don't be silly Deut.... I just read the first page of "The Old Man and the Sea" and I've decided to become a fisherman...... that's what it's about right?

For a Moderator who is so quick to leap on posts containing personal attacks (and rightly so), you have surprisingly little problem encouraging the trite cattiness that precedes them.

I recently ran accross a bit of scripture that says God created evil.

Is this a point that is being contested? It was my understanding that the source of evil was readily understood by Christians as being God, as God is the source of everything. I don't see this as a necessary fault of Christian morality, though; Christians can convincingly argue that evil is necessary to the moral/spiritual development of humanity, and the potential to choose evil is necessary to possess a truly free will.

It's important not to equivocate the word 'evil;' we should only use it here to refer to moral evil, not the impartial 'evil' of disasters or things beyond human control. Moral evil can only exist when there is a choice. God, according to the Christian faith, allows complete freedom of choice and, thus, God can have no direct influence on the existence or lack thereof of evil without compromising Free Will.

 

[Pah]

Quote: (Originally Posted by pah)
I recently ran accross a bit of scripture that says God created evil.
Is this a point that is being contested?

I was gently trying to bring the topic back to the one in the opening post - a bridge, if you will from the topic of morality to the basis of the morality

The greater problem is one where everything is defined by the extremes and people hold the rest of us to that rigid ascetic and antiqitated worldview be it any monotheistic religion. It leads to the arrogance of the "right way" as distinguished from the "sinful way". It fosters the supression of inanate rights recognized by free societies to conform to a malevolant dictatorship of the "holy".

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

I was gently trying to bring the topic back to the one in the opening post - a bridge, if you will from the topic of morality to the basis of the morality

No, sorry, I didn't mean was this point being contested within the framework of our discussion, but whether this was a point being contested at all -- I'm pretty sure most Christians would agree with the idea that God created evil, but perhaps for some unfathomable purpose.

Assuming that it's accepted that God created evil, what impact do you see this having on the basis of Christian morality?

 

[Pah]

....

Assuming that it's accepted that God created evil, what impact do you see this having on the basis of Christian morality?[/color]

That might be a good question but not in this thread

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Oh. Okay.