(June 15, 2023 at 1:46 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Logic but inside of the cultural frame. Let's say there is a society where slavery is moral because they believe that their god said it was moral. Now you could appeal to human feelings that slaves are suffering, but if they believe that their god is real then individuals don't matter and you are the one who is dismissing the facts. So the only thing you could do would be to debunk their god because to them it is logical to do what their god wants.

You mean a society that’s morally incorrect full of people with no regard for human suffering? You could debunk their gods, but you shouldn’t expect that to change their moral status. Slaving societies went through god beliefs like a cracker goes through field hands. Wouldn’t you know it, all the gods always agreed with the slaver.

(June 15, 2023 at 1:46 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Logic but inside of the cultural frame. Let's say there is a society where slavery is moral because they believe that their god said it was moral. Now you could appeal to human feelings that slaves are suffering, but if they believe that their god is real then individuals don't matter and you are the one who is dismissing the facts. So the only thing you could do would be to debunk their god because to them it is logical to do what their god wants.

You mean a society that’s morally incorrect full of people with no regard for human suffering? You could debunk their gods, but you shouldn’t expect that to change their moral status. Slaving societies went through god beliefs like a cracker goes through field hands. Wouldn’t you know it, all the gods always agreed with the slaver.

(June 15, 2023 at 6:52 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(June 15, 2023 at 3:47 pm)Nishant Xavier Wrote: The question: was infanticide ok just because it was legal in those societies?

Much better questions:

Was it moral for the god of the Bible to toss Adam and Eve out of Eden for disobeying a command despite the fact that at the time of disobedience they did not yet possess the moral knowledge to know that disobedience was bad?

How about the Noachide flood?  Is it morally acceptable to drown millions of living beings because of a perception that everything has somehow turned evil, even the kittens and bunny rabbits and puppies?

What about David's infant son?  WTF was going on there?  Why kill the baby and not the adulterous, murderous David?

Oh, and that Jesus nonsense too.  How is it even possible  for one person to pay another person's moral debt?  As I see it, anyone who willing accedes to substitutionary atonement, letting Jesus pay their alleged (and allegedly unpayable)  debt, has taken the real "Mark of the Beast."

No, Mr. Xavier.  Don't go lecturing us about morality when you practice a grossly immoral creed.

A little earlier, you told me "morality varies too much from culture to culture to be based on an objective standard." 

So if the culture of the Old Testament says that it is acceptable to drown bunny rabbits, do you have any objective reason to say that they're wrong? Wouldn't the morality of the time be correct for the time, although for us it may be unpalatable? 

It sounds as though you do have some standard by which you judge morals from other times and places. Otherwise you'd have to say "when they did it, it was moral."

(June 15, 2023 at 11:59 pm)Belacqua Wrote: A little earlier, you told me "morality varies too much from culture to culture to be based on an objective standard." 

So if the culture of the Old Testament says that it is acceptable to drown bunny rabbits, do you have any objective reason to say that they're wrong? Wouldn't the morality of the time be correct for the time, although for us it may be unpalatable? 

It sounds as though you do have some standard by which you judge morals from other times and places. Otherwise you'd have to say "when they did it, it was moral."

My standard is very simple: Does it cause unnecessary suffering? If so, it's wrong. From another culture's POV perhaps the Noachide flood was seen as moral. From my POV it is obviously immoral. Subjectivity on both sides of the equation.

(June 16, 2023 at 1:11 am)Astreja Wrote:

(June 15, 2023 at 11:59 pm)Belacqua Wrote: A little earlier, you told me "morality varies too much from culture to culture to be based on an objective standard." 

So if the culture of the Old Testament says that it is acceptable to drown bunny rabbits, do you have any objective reason to say that they're wrong? Wouldn't the morality of the time be correct for the time, although for us it may be unpalatable? 

It sounds as though you do have some standard by which you judge morals from other times and places. Otherwise you'd have to say "when they did it, it was moral."

My standard is very simple:  Does it cause unnecessary suffering?  If so, it's wrong.  From another culture's POV perhaps the Noachide flood was seen as moral.  From my POV it is obviously immoral.  Subjectivity on both sides of the equation.

OK, that's fair. You hold that unnecessary suffering is a bad thing to cause, but there is no way to posit this as a moral standard that always applies.

That's a claim to an objective fact, not a subjective fact. I don't know if it's that people tend to be objectivists who think they're subjectivists, or that people tend to be subjectivists that can't escape objectivist semantics...but it's A Thing.

Let's look at something Pro-Choice Liberal, and foundress of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger said: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the [Black/African American] population". Except she did not say Black, she used a filthy racial slur. Beside that, notice that she promotes not only Racism but even Black Genocide. So much for the false idea that liberals rather than Christians helped improve race relations.

Neither can she be completely excused by saying such views were common in her time, first because (1) she does not want the word to go out that this is what she intends, showing it was morally unacceptable even in her time to plot Black Genocide, (2) she said this in 1939, well after Lincoln and Wilberforce, who, instructed by their Christian Faith, were far more morally enlightened and even truly *progressive* in the right sense than she was.

Killing a baby/child through abortion or enslaving an innocent man/woman because of his/her race is not "progressive".

Now, other Heroes of the Left, including Marx and Nietzche, were also Racists. Here is Nietzche: "Slaves, Nietzsche remarked, hailed from “useless and harmful stock” and belonged to an altogether different and invariably subordinate species." (cited in the Independent, 12 Jan. 2018, Nietzche's Dangerous Thinking). Beside Dr. Martin Luther King, who was a Christian Pastor who is universally known to have done much to end racism and segregation, other Christian Pastors like Billy Graham and Reinhard Bonnke also played a large part. And of the Catholic Church, someone said, "When Black People couldn't yet sit on a Bus (in common with Whites), the Catholic Church had already made them Cardinals". All one ever needed to know Racism is wrong was the Great Commandment of Jesus Christ: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself", and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which He called the fundamental teaching of the entire Law and the Prophets. As mentioned on another thread, Christianity is now the dominant religion in Africa, with about 60% of that continent, God bless them, professing it, so most Africans probably are fairly aware of this. Because of Communist and Marxist influence in some Western countries, some Westerners are not.

Again, those Militant Atheists like Christopher Hitchens who want you to believe "Religion Poisons Everything" refuse to relate such objectively historical facts fairly and allow you to make an informed decision. Did religion really poison this issue? Clearly not. Some misguided Christians may indeed have wrongly believed that Christianity permitted slavery, but better informed Christians refuted and ultimately completely overcame them.

Why didn't Marx and Sanger and Nietzche and others do much, much more in their time to help end Racism and Slavery? They ought to have.

Since slavery was brought up, mentioned this. Now, to Aztreja's question: "The question: was infanticide ok just because it was legal in those societies?"


"Much better questions:

Was it moral for the god of the Bible to toss Adam and Eve out of Eden for disobeying a command despite the fact that at the time of disobedience they did not yet possess the moral knowledge to know that disobedience was bad?"

Ok, I'll answer one/some of yours, then you please answer mine. 

Was it moral for God to expel Adam and Eve? He had freely given them Paradise. He had warned them not to eat of a particular fruit, while giving them complete and absolute freedom to eat any other. This story does use symbolic language, btw, and the "forbidden fruit" can refer to any harmful temptation. What they ought to have done is proven themselves worthy of Heaven by loving God and keeping that one oh-so-simple command He gave them. If they had done that, they would have been confirmed in His Grace, gone to Heaven, and enjoyed eternal happiness.

As for God's Authority to allow temporal chastisements as a consequence of sin, if even mere human authorities punish offenders by jailing them or sometimes capital punishment, then God even more has the right to inflict such penalties, which more often are remedial measures than anything else. If someone, on seeing a temporal difficulty, repents and turns to God, he saves his soul and goes to Heaven to enjoy Eternal Life. 

That God is also the Author of Natural Life also needs to be taken into account. God gave us Natural Life and now wants to give us Eternal Life. God allows the penalty of temporal punishments (either in this life or Purgatory) or the possible threat of eternal punishment, for mortal, willful, unrepented sin only, in order to deter bad behavior. God doesn't interfere with our freedom, but everything, whether temporal blessings, or temporal pain, is ultimately ordered toward trying to impel Souls to turn to Him, turn from sin, be holy, and enjoy Eternal Heavenly Happiness.

When viewed in the Light of Eternal Happiness, which is an Infinite Good because it lasts forever, a small amount of temporal pain is infinitesimal.

Some questions will be answered only in Heaven. We do not know everything in this life, even about the visible creation. We do know enough, from Conscience etc, to know that God is Good, and that we ought to obey the Moral Law on our Conscience, which evinces His Goodness.

God Bless.

Regurgitating IA sentiments, how conspiratorially unoriginal.

(June 16, 2023 at 2:25 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: Now, other Heroes of the Left, including Marx and Nietzche

You obviously don't know anything about the left or anything else.

(June 16, 2023 at 2:25 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: And of the Catholic Church, someone said, "When Black People couldn't yet sit on a Bus (in common with Whites), the Catholic Church had already made them Cardinals".

Actually, the Catholic church has done horrible damage to black people and is the main reason why slavery was in the colonies. It all started when Pope Nicolas V issued a papal bull that legally granted Portugal the right to enslave any people they encounter south of Cape Bojador, on the coast of Western Sahara. About midway through the bull, the Pope declared all Sub-Saharan Africans henceforth be held in perpetual slavery.

(June 16, 2023 at 2:25 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: Aztreja's question: "The question: was infanticide ok just because it was legal in those societies?"

Astreja's position, as I understand it, is that it is OK to commit infanticide in societies where infanticide is considered OK. There is no objective standard by which to assert otherwise. You and I may disapprove, but that's not applicable to other societies.