(December 10, 2020 at 12:55 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 10, 2020 at 12:47 pm)Greatest I am Wrote: I can indeed judge you as thinking in an immoral way when saying that a genocidal god worshiping homophobic and misogynous religion is moral.

If your morality does not agree, it is corrupted.

Regards
DL

What you’re doing is judging me by your own moral standards (which is fine, as far as it goes), but the clear implication is that you believe your own moral standards are absolutes. That’s a position you can’t possibly justify. 

For what it’s worth, I find homophobia and misogyny abhorrent, but that doesn’t mean that, within the bounds of traditional Christianity, they are immoral. I can disagree with them while recognizing that they are moral claims.

Boru

I do not see my morality as absolute. As a perpetual seeker of the best rules and laws to live by, I am always open to new and better ways. 

Most moral tenets are subjective, not objective. 

The religious homophobia and misogyny is demonstrably going against the Golden Rule that religions say they go by. That makes their ways immoral.

Christians and you here, disagree but cannot do apologetics to justify their position.

Regards
DL

I'll give you a real world example from my own life. If you searched catholic church in (insert my city here), you'll be directed to the diocese website. The diocese website, on it's welcome page, offers an energy and carbon audit for households. That's their in. They're direct competitors with me in an ideological marketplace..but, in practice, we work together on this issue with some regularity. I've paid my bills with catholic money.

I farm St Peter's fish, after all..in the middle of a veritable fish (and food) desert. If that's not one of gods miracles.......of mana falling from the sky..well, you tell me.

Now, there are explanations for this. I live in a rural area and so the message about what should be which resonates here isn't the same message that resonates in NYC (although that;'s changing). The catholic religion..here, officiialy, believes that the world should be more in tune with natural cycles and limitations. That;s the litmus test for prospective new believers. That;s the angle.

That's a moral claim. Now, I have questions;

Are they wrong that the would should be a certain way. In this case, energy and carbon conscious.
Are they wrong about some jesus?

+and, for bonus points, I'm disappointed that you invoked moral realism and then immediately insisted that you didn't have the right answer to anything when challanged - and went even further to reduce the answers to moral questions to mere subjective opinion. Either you believe in right and wrong answers to moral questions...or you don't - pick a lane. I have no problem telling people that my moral standards are universal and true, and you must believe as much to claim that others are not and are false.

(December 10, 2020 at 1:27 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I'll give you a real world example from my own life.  If you searched catholic church in (insert my city here), you'll be directed to the diocese website.  The diocese website, on it's welcome page, offers an energy and carbon audit for households.  That's their in.  They're direct competitors with me in an ideological marketplace..but, in practice, we work together on this issue with some regularity.  I've paid my bills with catholic money.  

I farm St Peter's fish, after all..in the middle of a veritable fish (and food) desert.  If that's not one of gods miracles.......of mana falling from the sky..well, you tell me.

Now, there are explanations for this.  I live in a rural area and so the message about what should be which resonates here isn't the same message that resonates in NYC (although that;'s changing).  The catholic religion..here, officiialy, believes that the world should be more in tune with natural cycles and limitations.  That;s the litmus test for prospective new believers.  That;s the angle.  

That's a moral claim.  Now, I have questions;

Are they wrong that the would should be a certain way.  In this case, energy and carbon conscious.
Are they wrong about some jesus?

+and, for bonus points, I'm disappointed that you invoked moral realism and then immediately insisted that you didn't have the right answer to anything when challanged.  Either you believe in right answers or you don't - pick a lane. I have no problem telling people that my moral standards are universal and true, and you must believe as much to claim that others are not and are false.

This last is untrue, as stated in my last post, and false or not is what ensuing discussions and debates are to address and determine.

As to Jesus, of course they are wrong, as they see one Jesus when there are obviously more than one archetypal good man in the scriptures.

Christians tend to never quote or recognize the more esoteric shaman Jesus, who puts man above all the gods we have created.

If religions were concerned about our carbon footprint, they would sell off their energy gobbling churches and temples and get their paws out of the pockets of the more gullible of us.


Regards 
DL

Yes, false or not is what ensuing discussions and debates will surround.

All of that would be meaningless, though, unless normative claims can be true or false.

You're insisting that religions aren't concerned about such and such in the face of direct evidence to the contrary...but.... as a rational person, you must know that rational concerns are concerning to any body of people, including a church. They could do better, I agree....but this agreement is premised on a course of universal right action. Better by what standard, and if this standard cannot be contended to be universal..is it a standard at all? A standard such that we could judge their success or their failure as anything more than a matter of opinion?

Personally, I think that the rule of harm and the rule of food are enough to resolve the vast majority of human moral dilemma. When someone gets some claim about what is wrong..but a claim about what should be right - I take the help and excuse the irrelevant claims. Irrelevant claims being true -or- false don't actually have an effect on primary concerns. Not logically, not practically.

(December 10, 2020 at 1:25 pm)Greatest I am Wrote:

(December 10, 2020 at 12:55 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: What you’re doing is judging me by your own moral standards (which is fine, as far as it goes), but the clear implication is that you believe your own moral standards are absolutes. That’s a position you can’t possibly justify. 

For what it’s worth, I find homophobia and misogyny abhorrent, but that doesn’t mean that, within the bounds of traditional Christianity, they are immoral. I can disagree with them while recognizing that they are moral claims.

Boru

I do not see my morality as absolute. As a perpetual seeker of the best rules and laws to live by, I am always open to new and better ways. 

Most moral tenets are subjective, not objective. 

The religious homophobia and misogyny is demonstrably going against the Golden Rule that religions say they go by. That makes their ways immoral.

Christians and you here, disagree but cannot do apologetics to justify their position.

Regards
DL

If you don’t see your own moral tenets as absolute then you have no basis for calling anyone else’s tenets immoral.

I’m not a huge fan of the Golden Rule.

I’m not attempting to ‘justify’ anything at all, especially not the Christian views on women and homosexuals. What I’m trying to do is get you to understand that by making moral claims - even claims you and I disagree with vehemently - Christianity IS moral. Making moral claims is the only qualification required to be moral. It doesn’t even matter if those moral claims are justified or justifiable, just that they are made.

Boru

Both 1Beating women is bad and 2Beating women is good are moral claims.

They are claims on the moral nature of an act. This is what it means to say that christianity, as a religion, is united in a moral whole.

(December 10, 2020 at 1:42 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: They could do better, I agree....but this agreement is premised on a course of universal right action

In a chaotic world and universe, a universal right action may not be possible.

Set and setting are always a factor. I read of a tribe where the women are expected to accept more than one husband and marry brothers. They think it moral while most would not, but if they did not do what they do, an overabundance of randy males would make everyone's life miserable in that tribe.  

I argue that there are no universal objective moral tenets. The best candidate to date has been empathy and I am waiting for an answer to an objection that I gave the other poster. I am on the fence till the reply pushes me one way or the other.

Regards
DL

---

(December 10, 2020 at 1:53 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Both 1Beating women is bad and 2Beating women is good are moral claims.  

They are claims on the moral nature of an act. This is what it means to say that christianity, as a religion, is united in a moral whole.

More like an immoral hole, given the macro moral/immoral policies they promote.

Regards
DL

---

(December 10, 2020 at 1:46 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 10, 2020 at 1:25 pm)Greatest I am Wrote: I do not see my morality as absolute. As a perpetual seeker of the best rules and laws to live by, I am always open to new and better ways. 

Most moral tenets are subjective, not objective. 

The religious homophobia and misogyny is demonstrably going against the Golden Rule that religions say they go by. That makes their ways immoral.

Christians and you here, disagree but cannot do apologetics to justify their position.

Regards
DL

If you don’t see your own moral tenets as absolute then you have no basis for calling anyone else’s tenets immoral.

I’m not a huge fan of the Golden Rule.

I’m not attempting to ‘justify’ anything at all, especially not the Christian views on women and homosexuals. What I’m trying to do is get you to understand that by making moral claims - even claims you and I disagree with vehemently - Christianity IS moral. Making moral claims is the only qualification required to be moral. It doesn’t even matter if those moral claims are justified or justifiable, just that they are made.

Boru

 Making moral claims is the only qualification required to be moral.

That is B.S.

Satan makes moral claims.

If the Golden Rule is not your first moral tenet, as it is with the 70 odd % majority, what are your first few lead off moral tenets?

Regards
DL

(December 10, 2020 at 3:44 pm)Greatest I am Wrote:

(December 10, 2020 at 1:42 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: They could do better, I agree....but this agreement is premised on a course of universal right action

In a chaotic world and universe, a universal right action may not be possible.

Maybe not, but in a universe were you (rightly) declare another person morally wrong, that would be irrelevant.

Quote:I argue that there are no universal objective moral tenets. 

Check that assumption..and, fwiw, moral condemnation is most effective when there are objective condemnations.  As soon as you say that there are no universal tenets, you erode the case.  It's because you believe that there are, and that christian moral tenets are in error or are sub-par that you offer the criticism that you do.  Temet Nosce.

Quote:More like an immoral hole, given the macro moral/immoral policies they promote.

Regards
DL

Well, sure, but you can't spell immoral without moral.  

Lets use another rl example, about something trivial to make it lower stakes™.  Though, we'll see quickly, that the stakes can't be lowered.  I spent about a year learning jukendo.  Professionally.  Which is to say that I did it five days a week for eight hours a day....for money.  Would you believe it if I told you that when I attend a kendo meet the other participants accuse me of cheating in so many other words?  I'll likely never achieve 8th dan, even though I've been doing this since I was a kid, and did it for money, and did it professionally when my life was on the line.  For some people, I'll never be (credibly) more than 5th dan.  An nco.  A non commissioned officer with a non commisioned officers weapon.  Sure..I'm good with it, and can be expected to kill the the privileged sword classes, but my beating them..indeed..all of the peasants beating them, does not change the moral claim made which supports the status quo.  Not in feudal japan, and not in modern earth.  

A moral claim is made.  A losing swordsman is better than a winning spearman.  Beating a good swordsman doesn't alter that claim.  

Now, sure..I did that, that is what is - but when i went to kendo demonstrations, they sought to exclude me.  Or, at best, to make me and the style that I'd learned a demonstration (so that it doesn't directly compete).  Noda Style.  The fact that I know jukendo and the fact that I'm a large guy with long arms necessitates a certain tactic for defeating the other man, especially if he's armed with a shinai, which is a terrible weapon to defend or compete with a person who's holding a bayonet, win or lose.  

It is the case that I'm good with a spear.  However, it is also the case that the kendo community believes that a spear is a morally secondary weapon to a sword. That regardles of how things are, this is how things should be.

You might recognize that my being good with a spear doesnt change the normative assertion of being good with a sword?

(December 7, 2020 at 8:11 pm)Greatest I am Wrote:

(December 7, 2020 at 5:08 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Please help me reach your conclusion about the Qur'an. I'll wait.

Ok. 

Here are some stats that show just how vile Islam is.

By The Numbers - The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics - YouTube

Regards
DL

This garbage propaganda is not what I asked, pal. You think the Qur'an is man made or contains mistakes and I want you to show me some of that.

Can you do that or not ?

(December 10, 2020 at 4:21 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 7, 2020 at 8:11 pm)Greatest I am Wrote: Ok. 

Here are some stats that show just how vile Islam is.

By The Numbers - The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics - YouTube

Regards
DL

This garbage propaganda is not what I asked, pal. You think the Qur'an is man made or contains mistakes and I want you to show me some of that.

Can you do that or not ?

Do you really think the "pal" and "dude" stuff has any effect other to make you sound like Drich with his "sport" crap.  You both sound like wimps attempting to sound tough. It's not working out for either of you.