L
larkin31
Guest
I can’t take seriously a poster who begins an adult conversation this way.
- Status
L
larkin31
Guest
This is the only new question here. My answer: “sometimes.”
Nearly always, yes.
Well, it is entirely true that I sometimes agree with you. But as to absolute claims about what “should” be done when some people feel certain ways? Nope. And if you are stating that I can decide what is right in that case, then, well, aren’t we back to square one? You aren’t stating a moral standard; you are only stating a process claim (an action). Like, “When you see the + sign, you should add the numbers together.” well, yeah, definitionally that is true! But it is not an absolute.
D
ddarko
Guest
I see, and to think that this is what you said about the existence of other persons:-
“Yes, I believe it. But I am not 100% certain (not “absolutely certain”).”
you don’t think I was a not wrong to judge the sanity of a person who makes such claims?
Trust me, if anything, you have to give credit to me for even thinking of continuing a rational discussion with you.
God Bless
T
tonyrey
Guest
Please give one example of a moral situation when there is not an objective distinction between good and evil.
What are the exceptions?
It is not a question of feeling but reasoning.
I am stating an absolute principle for any** reasonable** person.
It is an absolute for any reasonable person.
It is an absolute principle that we should be reasonable. If you reject that there is no point in continuing this discussion…
G
grannymh
Guest
Moral Relativism (based on popular demand) makes it difficult for the individual to deal with suffering which is inherent to human nature.
I
inocente
Guest
You’ll already have seen from post #609 that I don’t believe all the text in scripture was inspired by God.
Hmmm. Either you’re very forgetful or you’re habitually not reading what I wrote. Let’s see if reposting from #605 helps you:
As I already said several times, I’ve not read much of it. You’d be way better off discussing your views on the Holy Quran with one of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world rather than a Baptist. It’s also off-topic. You could always start a thread if you want.
Two that come to mind are the gospel of Mary Magdalene and St. Paul’s prayer. See below for criteria.If you want to proclaim that the Gnostic texts (which ones?) are inspired, then tell us how you discern them to be–what criteria do you use?:
We’re taught to make our own judgment and never blindly follow any authority or herd. How you do it? Was the truth revealed to you when you read scripture, opened your mind to the Spirit, talked with others and prayed, or did you close your mind and become brainwashed? If the latter then by all means start a thread and I’ll let Catholics comment before posting on it myself.
With the Spirit as our witness we are obviously all brothers and sisters. Also in the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory we are all brothers and sisters. For all those who have eyes to see we are all brothers and sisters. I can’t prove it absolutely, some self-defined exceptions come to mind (e.g. certain dictators and their cronies) but it’s a fine principle, so for instance just as I’ve walked out on racist hosts in the middle of dinner parties I wouldn’t think highly of anyone who prejudges the holy books or faith of other religions.
I didn’t yet notice your reply to my post #609. To refresh your memory, it demonstrated changes in morality from the first Bronze Age writings until later. Some passages may be hyperbolic allegories but many others can’t be explained away. God never changes but people do, including the morality of the societies written about in scripture.Logic has ruled here.
One inference is that if there were any moral absolutes, we’d be statistically unlikely to find them in the Bible.
Another is that it would clearly be illogical to make out that the whole of the Bible is inspired by God while simultaneously pretending that nothing in any other religion’s holy books is inspired by God.
Different strokes for different folks. To say otherwise here might be thought irrational or prejudiced, don’t you think?
I
inocente
Guest
Just in case you’re confusing “empirical” with “objective” -
Evidence can either be empirical or theoretical. Empirical means based on what is experienced or seen rather than on theory - it can be subjective as well as objective.
In the situation you gave, would you ponder some theory of absolutes and make calculations, or would you just know it was wrong? If you just know it is wrong then it’s empirical, not theoretical, founded on your overwhelming compassion for the victim and total lack of empathy for the perp.
In less urgent or extreme situations you would probably take the time to make a more considered judgment based on your life experience and other evidence. If it’s very complicated and you’re a fan of some theory of ethics then you might use the theory to help decide, but I’d suggest it would never be a good idea to favor theories over people.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough. Then what criteria do you use to determine whether it’s theopneustos or not?
I
inocente
Guest
Agreed. For another thread (didn’t post in the end), I looked-up modernism and post-modernism to try to be clear on how one reacted against the other, but then found there’s now another movement called post-postmodernism.
Post-postmodernism seems to be founded on the idea that now we’re all online, our hopes and doubts along with our faiths and absolutes will rub off on each other and we’ll either transcend them to a new age of blissful enlightenment or else be reduced to getting our morals from reality TV, depending on the mood of the philosopher in question.
I
inocente
Guest
Twas in the same post, second para down from that really big font.Fair enough. Then what criteria do you use to determine whether it’s theopneustos or not?
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is begging the question.
*
“I know what’s inspired because it’s True and I know it’s True because it’s inspired.” *:whacky:
Circular.
You have to have a criteria that you use as your foundation. Otherwise, you’re simply creating a god in your own image.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah. So again the affirmation that you don’t really believe in that “different strokes” baloney.
So you’d remain at a dinner party where different folks talked about, say, cross dressing (you’re open minded and proud of it!), you’d walk out of a party where there were racists. (Not so ok with the different folks of these types, eh?)
P
PRmerger
Guest
See the very next post: 650.Twas in the same post, second para down from that really big font.
You are begging the question.
I
inocente
Guest
How do we know that we know that we know what we know? Angels on pinheads dude.
How do you do it?
PS: The snow looks good. We’re at 840 meters with no snow forecast yet below 1700. Town folk drive up to here when it snows as it’s a complete novelty to them.
I
inocente
Guest
Where’s the potential moral harm in cross-dressing? Why would it be evil?So you’d remain at a dinner party where different folks talked about, say, cross dressing (you’re open minded and proud of it!), you’d walk out of a party where there were racists. (Not so ok with the different folks of these types, eh?)
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah. So here’s the evasion.
Begging the question.
Then evasion.
Didn’t I predict as much?
If you don’t have a standard for what’s inspired, then you only have a circular, non-substantive, arbitrary criterion for deciding what’s theopneustos.
Is “God is love” inspired? How do you know? Because it feels right? The Spirit talked to you and told you so?
Is "I will go and do what the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.” inspired? How do you know?
Is “All generations shall call me blessed” inspired? How do you know?
Is “my breath is offensive to my wife” inspired? How do you know?
G
grannymh
Guest
Practically speaking, circular :whacky: can be absolutely true when one puts a particular saying back into its context which in this example has to be verified as truth, the noun. Circular :whacky: in special circumstances can be considered a “both-and” situation. Yes, I do realize that “both-and” situations are often avoided because they present difficulties. Human nature is not simple.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I didn’t say it was evil.Where’s the potential moral harm in cross-dressing? Why would it be evil?
I am a cross-dressing agnostic.
Just to reiterate: your “different strokes” paradigm is only for things that you’re tolerant of or agnostic about.
But you really don’t believe in the “different strokes” thing. To wit: you’d walk out on racists. NOT different strokes, right?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Not at all. Most Catholic Answers are actually both/and.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Which is why we Catholic take the *entire *Word of God to discern truth.
Morality hasn’t changed. God’s Word is eternal. Just our understanding of it has developed.
Scripture has NEVER said that women are inferior to men. Like the Koran says.
- Status