(June 20, 2015 at 6:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 6:01 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Agreed. The actions of a few have tainted all...in the minds of those who are less discerning.

You're one of those "few" tainting things, Randy.  Let that sink in.

Randy molested kids?

(June 20, 2015 at 5:57 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 5:54 pm)Won2blv Wrote: Also, are you saying that there is not morally justified reason for some of the actions that were condoned, such as slavery?

Read again what I wrote. I couldn't make my position any clearer than to say I don't judge ancient societies based on what they lived by at their time.

But time moved on. Simple enough?

I agree, but its reasonable to me that gods institutions would have to be compatible with modern day customs. The mosaic law for example was not perfect itself. But its possible that it was the perfect system for the day and age.

Not this bullshit again............lets see some of it's contemporaries shall we?  Or would you rather not bother with that.....weaseling around about "possibility" as though you'd actually done some sort of moral propositional calculus.  

Someone told you that, that's where that statement comes from and that's all that statement comes from. So what? Someone told plenty of kids a fat man in a red suit comes down their chimney....and I know you don't put any stock in that, hell, you don't even put up a stocking.

(June 20, 2015 at 6:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Not this bullshit again............lets see some of it's contemporaries shall we?  Or would you rather not bother with that.....weaseling around about "possibility" as though you'd actually done some sort of moral propositional calculus.  

Someone told you that, that's where that statement comes from and that's all that statement comes from.   So what?   Someone told plenty of kids a fat man in a red suit comes down their chimney....and I know you don't put any stock in that, hell, you don't even put up a stocking.

You talk funny. Every time I read your posts, I am reminded of Big Tom from Survivor Africa. Not because of content, but because of the style of the writing.

(This is not meant to be an insult, merely an observation.)

(June 20, 2015 at 6:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: But those acts are still objectively immoral, no matter what that society thinks. Don't you want those societies to stop doing these things? If so, then you too are what you describe in your very lest sentence.

I only quoted this part because it stands out. Maybe we have a semantic problem here. From where I am standing this is entirely wrong. But that's not the point, since it's also an entirely different society that obviously didn't move very far withing the last 2000 years. So yes, I would want them to change things.

But 200 years ago, it was perfectly OK to do just that in certain parts of the US and of Europe too. We have moved on. My point is and always was, that we have learned from past mistakes. We had the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment to teach us, we had bloody wars and revolutions that moved things along. So we as societies changed and also our perception of what is right or wrong.

I always keep arguing that the bible doesn't offer an objective morality. What it does is open a window into the past. It tells us, how people thought at a specific time and region. What they perceived as good and evil. That, if you don't believe that book to be the word of god, is the ultimate truth: There is no objective morality to be found in that book. Only the values of the people writing it down.

I would also argue that there's no objective morality to be found in our societies. In another 2000 years, things will look very differently again. And as much as I am convinced to be a pretty decent everyday life person, my views may be ancient history then.

(June 20, 2015 at 6:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Not this bullshit again............lets see some of it's contemporaries shall we?  Or would you rather not bother with that.....weaseling around about "possibility" as though you'd actually done some sort of moral propositional calculus.  

Someone told you that, that's where that statement comes from and that's all that statement comes from.   So what?   Someone told plenty of kids a fat man in a red suit comes down their chimney....and I know you don't put any stock in that, hell, you don't even put up a stocking.

I just don't think anyone can make the claim that there is not morally justified reason for instituting slavery

(June 20, 2015 at 5:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: There are 2 things at play here:

1. Moral objectivity

2. Personal culpability

An act may be objectively immoral as the act in and of itself. But the person's culpability for commiting that act, is subjective.

For example, an insane person can go into psychotics and commit mass murder. Yes, the ACT they have committed is an objectively immoral act.

But considering the person's state of mind, their culpability is lessened. That person's culpability is less than that of a a person who committed the same act but did so fully conscientiously. The insane person is held at a lower standard and should thus receive less severe punishment, if any at all.

That is moral relativity.

(June 20, 2015 at 6:06 pm)Won2blv Wrote: But its possible that it was the perfect system for the day and age.

So why, if real, didn't he set up a new rulebook?

Editor f-up. Can't be bothered to retype.

(June 20, 2015 at 6:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 6:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You're one of those "few" tainting things, Randy.  Let that sink in.

Randy molested kids?

Randy gave financial support to the Church even after he discovered they were sheltering molesters, and even as they fought a rearguard legal action to seal their records about the molesters.

He supported them materially.