Three friends and three questions

[Qoeleth]

The moral principle that everyone agrees on, whether they are for or against gun control, is that you shouldn’t injure another person except in cases of self defense or defense of another person. That is a universal and objective truth. Where people disagree is on how to best live by that moral code. That is what is subjective.

Yes- but my point is, just because something is subjective (e.g. opinions on gun control), it needn’t prevent those involved for trying to get their view applied universally.

So, yes, those in favour of gun control might be holding a subjective opinion, but they can still campaign or vote for it, or argue for it…As can the opposite view.

The term ‘quasi-realism’ is sometimes used for this- i.e. we believe our subjective opinions REALLY are true, and those who disagree REALLY are wrong. (Otherwise, we would hold them as opinions at all!) But, an independent, third-party analyst (and maybe even ourselves, taking a different view), may recognise that such opinions are necessarily ‘relative’ in a certain sense, if considered objectively.

 

[ericc]

How about directly? After all there were some “revelations” direct communications from God. Or so they say…

Are you just sore he didn’t pick you to be the spokesperson? Do you reckon you are worthy? So you want him to pop up to say hi because you think he owes that to you and THEN you think about it whether you want to worship him?

Listen to whom? I would listen to God. I tried to pray, to ask for guidance. The silence was deafening.

If you seek sincerely, he will respond. If he doesn’t , seek again and again. Humble yourself. If you want something bad enough, you won’t quit seeking. Seeking with a close heart/mind is just as good as not inviting Him into your life. He does respect your “privacy”. If you truly want to invite someone into your house, open the doors wide open, not just a gap.

Why not? Is God too “busy” to come and have a nice fireside chat?

God is never too busy because he got all the time in the world. Unfortunately you don’t. Either you make a sincere attempt or you don’t. There is no need to convince me that your attempts were really really sincere because I don’t know your mind/heart. He does. If you think you have a great defense when you see him, all the best. He will have all the perfect responses to all your alibis, accusations, assertions, excuses etc. Don’t you know that everyone of us have a guardian angel every moment of our life? That data/evidence is invaluable.

Nonsense. Just KNOWING that God exists would not compel me to worship him.

Ok… So why bother to write so much even if his presence doesn’t seems to have much effect on you? Is it just for fun to see whether God is at your beck and call? Could you just show up so that I can think over it? With that kind of disrespect, should God respond to you, at all?

None of us has any direct information about God, what does he want, what our obligations might be. It is all conjecture. If God is similar to what the apologists say about him, I most certainly would NOT want to do anything with him. But I don’t think so. If there is a God he cannot be like the one depicted in the Bible or conceived by some “philosophers”.

Fine if that’s is your conclusion. But there are many that disagree with your conclusions. Interesting to know that others can conclude the opposite of your convictions isn’t it? And they are not any lesser human beings than you. Some of them are really really smart people. Not goat herders at all.

You can not make God to be what you imagine him to be, or what you want him to be. It is clear that the rejection of God is a decision by your own self. You expect God to give plenty of time or lifetimes to learn the errors of their ways, yet your conclusion to deny God comes short and swift. How’s that for fairness? You must be pretty confident that your defense to Him is solid and hell-proof.

Not just “mine”. Every rational person shares it. When our child does wrong, the punishment comes immediately, not a few years later. The same is for rewards.

That is the imperfect human that sees it that way. Who say that is the model that God must follow? You?

Just one more remark. It is amazing just how predictable your posts are. (Not just yours, personally).

I guess your responses were already formulated beforehand since you can predict my responses. With only 244 posts you already achieved such skills in so short a time. Amazing! So it is a pretty much copy-paste job to you. Lucky you! Unfortunately, I do not have that prediction capability of yours. I have to customized every answer depending on the questions posed because I think each question deserves a thought out answer. If I don’t have a response, I’ll admit that and let others more capable chip in.

With this, I think I have written enough and I urge you to seek again and again if you truly want to know God. If you build a firewall of negatives around you,it is difficult for you to break out. Personally, I blocked him out for 20 years during those so-call peak years of ages 20-40. Best time of our lives as some may say. But I was fortunate to break out of that wall of self-centered life.

We will never know him fully, but just enough is good enough for me.

 

[inocente]

Those are nice principles, but too generic to be usable in individual cases.

You asked for an objective epistemological method which gives straight answers about the Holocaust, and both the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative do so. By turning down principles, are you claiming that morality ought to be completely unprincipled?

*My conscience finds no problem with contraception, with IVF, and many contested cases. *

Come on, that’s not relevant, you were answering a post about the morality of the Holocaust. Does your conscience find no problem with mechanized genocide?

inocente;14301970:

No healthy human being would think the industrialized genocide of the Holocaust is legitimate. It is by definition inhuman, cruel, barbaric, psychopathic.

Oh, I agree with that, but there are many people do not. And they are NOT clinically insane either.

But if you agree that no healthy human being would think it legitimate then logically you’re stating that anyone who does is clinically unhealthy.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Are you just sore he didn’t pick you to be the spokesperson? Do you reckon you are worthy?

Was anyone ever “worthy”? Aren’t we all despicable sinners any more?

So you want him to pop up to say hi because you think he owes that to you and THEN you think about it whether you want to worship him?

Not that simple. I would ask questions, and wait for answers before I would “worship” him. If he cares about my fate, and if he wishes that I would be with hom in heaven, then a little help would be very useful. You guys try to blow both hot and cold from your mouth. On one hand you say that God loves us, and wishes all of us to be in heaven, while on the other hand you are indignant when we say that we need the bare minimum, an explicit knowledge about God.

The conclusion is inevitable: “God does not care about us. He does not help us in our life here, and does not give us even the minimal help to get to him. He only values blind faith and blind obedience.”

If you seek sincerely, he will respond.

This is very insulting. It assumes that I am at fault for not being “sincere” enough. It is ALWAYS my fault. I am not patient enough, or not sincere enough.

If you think you have a great defense when you see him, all the best. He will have all the perfect responses to all your alibis, accusations, assertions, excuses etc.

Why doesn’t he present those perfect responses NOW? I am ready and willing to listen - HONESTLY and SERIOUSLY. Why do I have to die first - when allegedly my “free will” evaporates and I am not allowed to “repent”?

Don’t you know that everyone of us have a guardian angel every moment of our life? That data/evidence is invaluable.

Nope, I don’t know. There are no angels and demons visible to us. Do you have an incantation to summon an angel or a demon?

You must be pretty confident that your defense to Him is solid and hell-proof.

I am willing to submit to such a test. Is he?

 

[ericc]

Was anyone ever “worthy”? Aren’t we all despicable sinners any more?

We’re all sinners. But are we worthy to be his spokesperson? His prophets even though sinners, he sees fit to have them represent him.

Not that simple. I would ask questions, and wait for answers before I would “worship” him. If he cares about my fate, and if he wishes that I would be with hom in heaven, then a little help would be very useful. You guys try to blow both hot and cold from your mouth. On one hand you say that God loves us, and wishes all of us to be in heaven, while on the other hand you are indignant when we say that we need the bare minimum, an explicit knowledge about God.

Interesting that you put “worship” in quotes. Does it mean that you pretended to worship him? Or was your “worship” conditional upon him answering you? If he didn’t respond, were you surprised that he didn’t? So if you were to “worship” God insincerely, should you expect a response? It doesn’t matter how long or how many times you asked insincerely if I may add. Previously you said , even if God appear to you, it is not enough for you to worship him. So even if God answer you, he might get the same response from you. So tell me, where was that “sincerity” you accused me of insulting you of? You insult yourself for thinking your request was “sincere”. Your sincerity was conditional which is no sincerity at all.

The conclusion is inevitable: “God does not care about us. He does not help us in our life here, and does not give us even the minimal help to get to him. He only values blind faith and blind obedience.”

You hardly given him your lifetime to come to this conclusion yet you have already judged him. Not too long ago you were saying that you need more time i.e. beyond a single lifetime, to see the errors of your ways. You would set up your penal system that way you so claimed. Explain your double standards.

This is very insulting. It assumes that I am at fault for not being “sincere” enough. It is ALWAYS my fault. I am not patient enough, or not sincere enough.

Interesting to see that you jumped to conclusions again. No one pointing faults and no one insulting you. Were you expecting an immediate respond when you “worshiped” him? Did you question yourself why you didn’t get a respond or is this your SOP to point to others that it is their fault for not responding? You know yourself best. When you flunk an exam, is it the teachers fault for setting an exam that is too tough or did you “study” enough? Others do pass their exams.

Why doesn’t he present those perfect responses NOW? I am ready and willing to listen - HONESTLY and SERIOUSLY. Why do I have to die first - when allegedly my “free will” evaporates and I am not allowed to “repent”?

Look at yourself demanding from God again. You there! Get down here NOW! Respond to me or else! Your penal system is not fair! Blah blah blah. Have you elevated yourself so high?

Nope, I don’t know. There are no angels and demons visible to us. Do you have an incantation to summon an angel or a demon?

Just letting you know that they are there.

I am willing to submit to such a test. Is he?

Testing and challenging God. A lack of respect and fear of God isn’t very wise in my opinion. But you can rant all you want. Just wait for the results to come in.

I’m shaking the dust off my sandals.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

This is an offshot of the “absolute / relative morality thread”. Let’s take three friends, “Albert”, “Brad” and “Cecil”, abbreviated as “A”, “B” and “C”.
They go to a restaurant and order the same dish. “A” says: “this dish is too spicy”, “B” says: “it is too bland”, and “C” says: “it is just perfect”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Later they go to the gym, and try to lift the same weight. “A” says: “bah, it is too easy”, “B” says: “ouch, it is too heavy”, and “C” says: “neither too heavy, nor too light”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Then they go to a spa, and sit in the whirlpool. “A” says: “the water is too hot”, “B” says: “the water is not hot enough”, and “C” says: “the water is just perfect”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Later they watch a criminal trial, where the judge delivers a verdict. “A” says: “the verdict is too harsh”, “B” says: “the verdict was too lenient”, and “C” says: “the verdict was just”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?
Obviously there is no correct evaluation in either case. Their evaluation is SUBJECTIVE, according to their taste, or tolerance or sense of justice. The last one is an ethical question, the other ones are not; they are a little like an aesthetical problem. Is the music of Bach beautiful? What about rap music?

The point is that “ethics” and “aesthetics” are SUBJECTIVE. There is NO “absolute” ethics (morality) or aesthetics (beauty). When one says: “this action was immoral”, all they say that they don’t like it. When they say: “it was a moral choice”, all they express is that they agree with it.

This piece of rock weighs “100 pounds” - this is an objective proposition. On the other hand “this rock is too heavy”, or “this rock is too light” or “this rock is neither too heavy, nor too light” are subjective statements.

Your argument is as silly as Goldilocks and the Three Bears. So everything is relative to you, eh? I doubt it. Even atheists have a moral standard so there must be something you are measuring your morality by. Most people understand basic right and wrong by the age of 7.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So everything is relative to you, eh?

I did NOT say that EVERYTHING is relative. I even gave an example in “This piece of rock weighs “100 pounds” - this is an objective proposition.” Facts are objective, their evaluations are subjective. I suggest that you should not confuse “absolute vs. relative” with “objective vs. subjective”.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I did NOT say that EVERYTHING is relative. I even gave an example in “This piece of rock weighs “100 pounds” - this is an objective proposition.” Facts are objective, their evaluations are subjective. I suggest that you should not confuse “absolute vs. relative” with “objective vs. subjective”.

Objective or subjective seems to be leading up to relativism. Or what are you trying to propose?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Objective or subjective seems to be leading up to relativism. Or what are you trying to propose?

I don’t propose anything. I simply pointed out that there are objectively true propositions, and there are subjective opinions. These later ones are part of “ethics” and “aesthetics”.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I don’t propose anything. I simply pointed out that there are objectively true propositions, and there are subjective opinions. These later ones are part of “ethics” and “aesthetics”.

Okay then there is nothing worth arguing about here.