(May 19, 2017 at 7:51 pm)Grandizer Wrote: We no longer view slavery as acceptable. That's moral progression. That's how it's always worked, no dictation from God.

Thank goodness we don't wait for dictation from God: Nowhere in the Bible does God say "Stop slavery!"

---

(May 19, 2017 at 5:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 19, 2017 at 5:31 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: It's the collective response which determines morality.

Sounds pragmatic but not principled. I guess if everyone comes to think female genital mutilation is okay then it will be. Today slavery is wrong but it was okay in the 17th century. And exactly how does one define the collective response? Is 51% sufficient to determine if something is moral?

A majority of 51% cannot keep a principle firm. An 80% one yes.

There are societies (in middle east?) who accept genital mutilation to be okay, just because it's a "tradition" - that is, a thinking like "our ancestors did that, so why shouldn't we?" Kind of like traditional Christian beliefs. So, whether we like it or not, according to them it's moral while according to us it's not.

As for our "more evolved societies", where we don't give much value to traditions, we accept the possibilities that not everything we think to be "good" is necessarily good - if something proves to do more harm than good, then we can drop it. While in a religious society, that belief is ingrained in the religious teachings, so for them to drop it feels like they have to choose whether to rebel against God or not. Which do you think they would choose?

I don't believe that our morality is perfect. But it is more malleable, which makes it easier to improve.

I apologise to SteveII for my outburst against him the other day; it was uncalled for, unnecessary, and unfair. I expect/accept he may still wish to ignore me, but nonetheless I do apologise.

(May 21, 2017 at 9:45 pm)emjay Wrote: I apologise to SteveII for my outburst against him the other day; it was uncalled for, unnecessary, and unfair. I expect/accept he may still wish to ignore me, but nonetheless I do apologise.

No problem. Actually I don't have you on ignore. I read your contributions to whatever topic we are discussing because discussion is your goal. When a person's goal is obviously not discussion...my feed gets shorter!

(May 22, 2017 at 8:52 am)SteveII Wrote:

(May 21, 2017 at 9:45 pm)emjay Wrote: I apologise to SteveII for my outburst against him the other day; it was uncalled for, unnecessary, and unfair. I expect/accept he may still wish to ignore me, but nonetheless I do apologise.

No problem. Actually I don't have you on ignore. I read your contributions to whatever topic we are discussing because discussion is your goal. When a person's goal is obviously not discussion...my feed gets shorter!

Well it's not always... I admit that. Sometimes I'm just angry and need to let off steam... so I can't promise it won't happen again. But I'd rather it didn't because I don't like myself when I'm like that and I know it's not rational. I should have been more mindful, not least because there's a person with feelings behind every avatar, but I wasn't that day... so I'm sorry.

(May 19, 2017 at 6:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 19, 2017 at 5:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Sounds pragmatic but not principled. I guess if everyone comes to think female genital mutilation is okay then it will be. Today slavery is wrong but it was okay in the 17th century. And exactly how does one define the collective response? Is 51% sufficient to determine if something is moral?

Your principles hopefully lie in your gut rather than an ancient book.  Where would you suggest we get our principles from?

Guess we'll never know where Neo gets his vaunted 'principles' from.

*crickets-chirping*

(May 22, 2017 at 9:24 am)emjay Wrote:

(May 22, 2017 at 8:52 am)SteveII Wrote: No problem. Actually I don't have you on ignore. I read your contributions to whatever topic we are discussing because discussion is your goal. When a person's goal is obviously not discussion...my feed gets shorter!

Well it's not always... I admit that. Sometimes I'm just angry and need to let off steam... so I can't promise it won't happen again. But I'd rather it didn't because I don't like myself when I'm like that and I know it's not rational. I should have been more mindful, not least because there's a person with feelings behind every avatar, but I wasn't that day... so I'm sorry.

That's really big of you emjay. You are genuine and very aware. One of the many reasons why I like you. <3

(May 19, 2017 at 5:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 19, 2017 at 5:31 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: It's the collective response which determines morality.

Sounds pragmatic but not principled. I guess if everyone comes to think female genital mutilation is okay then it will be. Today slavery is wrong but it was okay in the 17th century. And exactly how does one define the collective response? Is 51% sufficient to determine if something is moral?

But this is the idea -that there are immutable principles which must always be followed- which leads to honor killing, Jihad, stoning of rape victims and the rest of it.

Being 'principled' in the face of pragmatic evidence of its destructiveness is what is wrong with being principled.  If you can't reflect on and revise your principles, they are as apt to do more harm as prevent it.  The person who does evil cannot absolve themselves of responsibility then just by pointing to the principle.

And your suggestion that female genital mutilation or slavery are parallels for self chosen termination of life are perplexing.  What is the immediately obvious justification for either of those which corresponds to the benefit of subtracting oneself from the pool of the human virus which is over running and threatening the well being of the very web of life on which we depend?

---

(May 22, 2017 at 10:33 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 19, 2017 at 6:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Your principles hopefully lie in your gut rather than an ancient book.  Where would you suggest we get our principles from?

Guess we'll never know where Neo gets his vaunted 'principles' from.

*crickets-chirping*

Guess we all just have to hope his mindless adherence to them won't get us all gunned down in the end.

(May 22, 2017 at 10:33 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 19, 2017 at 6:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Your principles hopefully lie in your gut rather than an ancient book.  Where would you suggest we get our principles from?

Why can't it come from both?

We clearly have a built in moral compass--which the Bible also recognizes: 

Romans 2:12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

In addition to the moral laws/instruction laid out in Exodus/Leviticus and in the NT, there are also other doctrines that lead to conclusions about human value, responsibility, and relation to the natural world.

(May 22, 2017 at 11:43 am)SteveII Wrote: Why can't it come from both?

We clearly have a built in moral compass--which the Bible also recognizes: 

Romans 2:12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

In addition to the moral laws/instruction laid out in Exodus/Leviticus and in the NT, there are also other doctrines that lead to conclusions about human value, responsibility, and relation to the natural world.

Would you follow a moral from the book if it didn't agree with your gut?

(May 22, 2017 at 12:46 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Would you follow a moral from the book if it didn't agree with your gut?

I do. Like divorce and remarriage for any reason other than adultery. Personally, we also stopped short of certain infertility procedures because of moral considerations - things that don't seem problematic except in the light of Scripture. I could give other examples, but those should suffice. So I'm with SteveII. Our internal moral compass and reason both serve as the initial guides from general revelation but because of our fallen nature they need to be supplemented by special revelation.

*steps on cricket*