In a pluralistic society of different beliefs, does the Christian have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, what, in your opinion, should happen if you have an important question with no consensus one way or another?

Which, by the way, is what often happens.

It is not as if there is a “neutral” option. One opinion ends up winning one way or another. So, which one should, in your opinion?
I’m not so sure there are “important questions” that don’t have a consensus one way or the other. Again, I’m not talking about a 51-49 vote in the Senate or something, I’m talking popular approval. The cases I can think of that “imposed” the will of a tiny majority on everyone–prohibition, for example, or perhaps a better example the 2000 election in Florida that was decided by something like 512 votes, or Brexit–did not end well. It seems to me if an issue were “important” you wouldn’t want to make something legal or illegal without a consensus. So I would just wait. Again, we’re not talking technical or administrative issues here, we’re talking about making something legal or illegal.
Actually, I get an impression that you are quite willing to “inflict your personal beliefs on someone else”, just different ones.

But anyway, what exactly, in your view is wrong with “inflicting personal beliefs on others”?
Well, I suppose if I believed in free speech, and I thought everyone should have free speech, if you want to call that “inflicting my personal beliefs on someone else,” I’m guilty. I think individuals should make their own decisions on abortion. So if asking everyone to make their own decisions is “inflicting my personal beliefs” I plead guilty to that. But that’s not the meaning I would give to the term.

What’s wrong with inflicting your personal beliefs on others? You don’t have the right. It’s that simple.
 
40.png
Bradskii:
In any case, absolute means not qualified in any way.
Does it?

Wikipedia (Moral absolutism - Wikipedia) gives such definition: “Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.”.

As you can see, “not qualified in any way” is not there.
Good Lord…

That’s what Scarlett is suggesting. That there are moral absolutes WHICH ARE NOT QUALIFIED IN ANY WAY. That’s what moral absolutism means. That’s why the definition doesn’t contain any reference to it being qualified. BY DEFINITION it doesn’t.

But at least now you know that.

My point is that there is no such thing as moral absolutism. To answer a question like ‘Is it wrong to kill?’ You need to qualify it in some way which makes it relative to the situation.

Likewise ‘Is it wrong to cause pain to a child?’ needs qualification before you can answer it. Which makes it relative.
 
But that’s just it, their choice isn’t isolated from the rest of society.

Society must agree to allow them to destroy a human life.

Also, I know first hand how hospitals discriminate against doctors and nurses who will not assist or perform abortions. So much for freedom of choice.

Jim
 
Last edited:
I’m not so sure there are “important questions” that don’t have a consensus one way or the other.
Of course there are. And you have even mentioned them yourself.

It is just that you are inconsistent.
The cases I can think of that “imposed” the will of a tiny majority on everyone–prohibition, for example, or perhaps a better example the 2000 election in Florida that was decided by something like 512 votes, or Brexit–did not end well.
So, Brexit.

About 50% for, about 50% against.

No consensus one way or another.

And, presumably, an important issue.

So, again, how do you propose to make a decision in such case?

Flip a coin?
Well, I suppose if I believed in free speech, and I thought everyone should have free speech, if you want to call that “inflicting my personal beliefs on someone else,” I’m guilty. I think individuals should make their own decisions on abortion. So if asking everyone to make their own decisions is “inflicting my personal beliefs” I plead guilty to that. But that’s not the meaning I would give to the term.
Of course you wouldn’t.

You want to use this “term” for beliefs you do not like.

Yes, it is inconsistent.
What’s wrong with inflicting your personal beliefs on others? You don’t have the right. It’s that simple.
That’s just another way of saying “It’s wrong.”.

So, you can only say “It’s wrong, because it’s wrong.”?

No other principle to derive that from?
Good Lord…

That’s what Scarlett is suggesting. That there are moral absolutes WHICH ARE NOT QUALIFIED IN ANY WAY. That’s what moral absolutism means. That’s why the definition doesn’t contain any reference to it being qualified. BY DEFINITION it doesn’t.
Can you actually cite the specific words?

For now it looks like you just want it to be the definition, as you just keep repeating that it has to be such without an argument.
 
“There are no moral absolutes!”

Are you sure about that?

“Absolutely!”
“Everyone would agree torturing children is wrong”

“He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.”
 
B
What the…?

It’s YOU that wants to show that moral absolutism doesn’t mention qualification. I’m AGREEING with you. It doesn’t.

If moral absolutism included qualifications, if it was relative to any given scenario, then it wouldn’t be moral absolutism!
 
Scarlet is talking about personal absolutes, those things we personally hold should never be done.

There’s also a concept of objective morality which is moral absolutes that exist without the ‘personal’ element.
 
B

What the…?

It’s YOU that wants to show that moral absolutism doesn’t mention qualification. I’m AGREEING with you. It doesn’t.

If moral absolutism included qualifications, if it was relative to any given scenario, then it wouldn’t be moral absolutism!
That looks like a mess. You end up saying that qualifications both are and are not available for “moral absolutes”.

Can you actually use a definition of “moral absolute” that some moral absolutist actually uses? Yes, preferably someone who’s actually arguing with you, but “some” would still be an improvement.

Don’t use a definition that only you yourself use.
 
I love it when I post on this subject, because people always respond to what they THINK I said, or what they WISH I said. It would be more helpful to respond to WHAT I ACTUALLY said!
I wish I could give you a hundred little hearts for that. One heart does not do you justice!
 
We all know we have free will and that is one thing all beliefs can agree on. The other thing we can all agree on is known as the golden rule which for Catholicism is “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Even among people who aren’t in any religious congregation (such as atheists or agnostics or people who consider themselves spiritual) can agree on these two statements. With this knowledge the imposing of beliefs is something that is not done out of love neither is it done out of what is right. The essence of Jesus Christ’s preaching is the golden rule as stated above and what God wants from us as people is not to change the hearts of people through what we believe to be right, but to change the hearts of people through love which is that of the infinite God. If what you do is out of genuine true love for God and your neighbor, then everything that you do for people will never be forced or imposed. You will do kind and caring things for people while you keep the commandments and rules of God naturally because through one’s love of God there is an automatic love of your neighbor because this is what God wants from us.

We are just people and when one realizes how supreme and unfathomable God actually is, there is no way that any one of us will feel worthy of pushing anyone into these christian principles we believe that we know in our hearts. The judgement of God should be left to God, but as His diplomats of truth, we do have a right to tell people, but strictly out of love, if they do something that is not out of love. However, there has to be a total purity of spirit and a total submitting to the love of Christ and to His divine will before one can genuinely show the truth to people, otherwise we might end up as hypocrites. We might see someone doing something we believe is sinful, but in the future we might do the exact same action in different or similar circumstances.

In the end, we have to keep humility from the grace of God because telling anyone that what they do is wrong out of force is out of total pride and self-love. It is because we think we know best as people, but in reality we have to understand that we know nothing and that God is the author of all truth and knowledge. With Him, anything is possible, even the conversion of the hardest of hearts and those who do not believe, when they see the actions and hear the words of those who have God within them, will see that there can only be good.
 
When I prayed with a group of Catholics in front of an abortion clinic, I kept my head down. I did not want to stare at or verbally shame any of the young women going inside. I did notice two young ladies from our group that were offering abortion alternative materials to some of these young women. They could accept or refuse the materials. I told myself I would leave the group if they were not loving toward these young women. They were. I later left for another reason. The abortion clinic closed a while later.
 
Last edited:
This is philosophy 101.

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Moral Absolutism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

Do you note the bit that says ‘regardless of the context of the act’? An act that someone describes as being a moral absolute does not allow for any context. It is regardless of context. The context doesn’t get a look in. Otherwise (and pay attention here), if the act IS relative to the context then it is not absolute. It is…relative.

I’m not sure I can make that any simpler.
 
This is philosophy 101.

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Moral Absolutism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

Do you note the bit that says ‘regardless of the context of the act’? An act that someone describes as being a moral absolute does not allow for any context. It is regardless of context. The context doesn’t get a look in. Otherwise (and pay attention here), if the act IS relative to the context then it is not absolute. It is…relative.

I’m not sure I can make that any simpler.
Let’s add the very next sentence: “Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions.”.

As you can see, it is not “no qualification is allowed, whatever ‘qualification’ is supposed to mean”.

And, of course, it tells us that only “certain” actions are inherently right or wrong. But you have considered just one example. It does nothing to disprove existence of moral absolutes.
 
'…regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual or society or culture…

That is, one does not consider the context of the act in regard to beliefs or goals. It is an act that does not relate to beliefs or goals in any way. The antonym of ‘absolute’ is ‘relative’. If an act is absolute it is not concerned with context such as the beliefs or aims of individuals or groups. If it does concern the beliefs and aims of individuals or groups, that is, if it relates to the beliefs and aims of individuals and groups, then it is relative.
 
I think that the question is whether the secular have a right to impose their views onto the religious.
 
'…regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual or society or culture…

That is, one does not consider the context of the act in regard to beliefs or goals. It is an act that does not relate to beliefs or goals in any way. The antonym of ‘absolute’ is ‘relative’. If an act is absolute it is not concerned with context such as the beliefs or aims of individuals or groups. If it does concern the beliefs and aims of individuals or groups, that is, if it relates to the beliefs and aims of individuals and groups, then it is relative.
Is that supposed to be going somewhere?

It looks like it will take lots of time until you’ll get anywhere close to formulating something like an argument against existence of moral absolutes, and thus, since this thread is not about them, maybe you’d like to create a new thread about that?
 
The secular world is promoted constantly. The goal is for Christians to reject the bad/wrong messages. Turn off your TV and radio most of the time. Only observe what they are saying. By that I mean keep up with the current bad/wrong messages and warn others. Reject them for yourself. Do not act on them. Compare these bad/wrong messages to reality, to what you know is true and what works toward good outcomes.
 
I don’t even have cable tv in my house, I look at it via the internet but I refuse to have it. I prefer to read and learn independently of what is shown on television and this includes certain religious programming, like those particular ones selling “the blood of Jesus.” I am referring to frivolous lawsuits where Nativity scenes are removed from town centers because of the complaints of one reprobate individual that wants to pretend they’re being persecuted, while in most cases they can bring the decorations of their choice. I think in one town a Flying Spaghetti Monster was used, they got what they wanted but looked like idiots at the same time. Then there’s the nonsense on college campuses where religious expression is severely curtailed. There’s more examples, much more. Religious societies work infinitely better than overtly secular ones because they encourage vocational charity, familial unity and personal discipline, while in secular repressive societies everything is forced by the state, including what they consider to be “charity.”
 
Society must agree to allow them to destroy a human life.
I don’t think you’ve been following what I’m saying: To most people, it’s NOT destroying a human life. You think it’s a human life. Jews and Muslims wouldn’t say it’s a human life until the baby moves in the womb. Iowa just passed a law (unsigned by the gov. as of today) that abortion is banned after you can detect a heart beat (after about 6 weeks). There are all sorts of scientifically verifiable milestones that could be considered “the beginning of human life.” There is disagreement about the DEFINITION of “human life,” but there is agreement that “destroying a human life” is murder. See?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top