(June 21, 2015 at 12:28 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 12:13 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Mission accomplished.

And that means just as much now as it did when Bush said it.

Jesus' mission was accomplished, but President Bush never actually said, "mission accomplished." He said:

“Now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country... We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.”

“The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”

“Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed.”

“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.”

“America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.”

Source.

(June 21, 2015 at 12:29 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Just to clarify what you're saying here, since that society considers these acts moral, is it then, moral?

To them, in their society, yes it is. Do I consider it moral? No. Do I expect the society I live in to condone it? No. Can you prove that your morality is right and theirs is wrong? No.

(June 21, 2015 at 12:29 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 12:18 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Objective morality would give no room whatsoever for jeebus to do this. Objective morality is unchanging and unchangeable. It is a dictate from outside.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that Jesus should not have stopped the stoning of the adulteress?

No, I'm saying that if morality were objective, he could not have stopped the stoning of the adulteress. If the morality you hold near and dear is indeed objective, it is what it is, no matter what and cannot be changed and the morality he lived by called for her to be stoned.

I want to know what, exactly, objective morals are. Anybody got a list?

(June 21, 2015 at 12:32 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 12:28 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: And that means just as much now as it did when Bush said it.

Jesus' mission was accomplished, but President Bush never actually said, "mission accomplished." He said:

“Now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country... We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.”

“The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”

“Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed.”

“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.”

“America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.”

Source.

Did Bush speak the words "mission accomplished?" No. The implication was there, however. Intentional or not.


At least G.W. was talking about things in the real world.

(June 21, 2015 at 12:52 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: I want to know what, exactly, objective morals are.  Anybody got a list?

I haven't seen one. I've seen a couple different lists of commandments and a really fucking long list of rules under mosaic law, but no list of objective morals.

(June 21, 2015 at 12:47 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 12:29 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Just to clarify what you're saying here, since that society considers these acts moral, is it then, moral?

To them, in their society, yes it is. Do I consider it moral? No. Do I expect the society I live in to condone it? No. Can you prove that your morality is right and theirs is wrong? No.

I already know that in their society they think that killing gays and burning rape victims is moral. But do you think they are wrong in believing that? Sounds like your answer is no. Is this correct?

(sorry, I don't mean to be annoying, just wanna be sure I fully understand)

---

(June 21, 2015 at 12:47 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 12:29 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that Jesus should not have stopped the stoning of the adulteress?

No, I'm saying that if morality were objective, he could not have stopped the stoning of the adulteress. If the morality you hold near and dear is indeed objective, it is what it is, no matter what and cannot be changed and the morality he lived by called for her to be stoned.

Hm? What do you mean he could not have stopped it? I'm sorry. I don't understand.

---

(June 21, 2015 at 12:52 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: I want to know what, exactly, objective morals are.  Anybody got a list?

We believe every single action is either moral, immoral, or morally neutral.

I can't make a list of every single immoral action a person can possibly take.

I've listed a few throughout this thread.

Why can't you make a list? What's stopping you?

(June 21, 2015 at 12:52 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: I want to know what, exactly, objective morals are.  Anybody got a list?

Rexboccarox, since I cannot possibly list every act that is objectively immoral, can I share what the Church's Sources of morality are? (basically how we go about determining the morality of an action.)

I can post a link that says it, or I can copy and paste... whichever, if either, is allowed in this case.

A link is fine if you're a. adding to the discussion, and b. sharing your own thoughts.  Please don't just post a link.

Also, I still don't understand why a list would be hard.

(June 21, 2015 at 1:04 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 12:47 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: To them, in their society, yes it is. Do I consider it moral? No. Do I expect the society I live in to condone it? No. Can you prove that your morality is right and theirs is wrong? No.

I already know that in their society they think that killing gays and burning rape victims is moral. But do you think they are wrong in believing that? Sounds like your answer is no. Is this correct?

(sorry, I don't mean to be annoying, just wanna be sure I fully understand)

Do I think they are wrong? Yes and no. Yes because my morality is different from theirs and no because they are doing what their morality tells them is right. Who am I to judge their morality when I can't prove that mine is more correct. I certainly don't think they're moral from within my moral framework. They don't think you and I are moral from within theirs (how dare you go out without covering you hair) and that is the point. Neither of us thinks the other is moral and neither of us can prove the other wrong because all morality is subjective.

(June 21, 2015 at 1:04 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 12:47 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: No, I'm saying that if morality were objective, he could not have stopped the stoning of the adulteress. If the morality you hold near and dear is indeed objective, it is what it is, no matter what and cannot be changed and the morality he lived by called for her to be stoned.

Hm? What do you mean he could not have stopped it? I'm sorry. I don't understand.

If morality were truly objective, he would have had no basis for saying that they shouldn't stone her. He would have had no alternative morality to present in in place of the current morality, especially considering what they were doing was in line with what gawd said.