Be sure they don't carry that to its logical conclusion. "Well, then, anything is moral or immoral depending on my subjective view on it and you can't tell me otherwise."
If morality is determined by the subjective mores of each society, then it raises several problems I can see.
1. It means that any behavior can be both moral and immoral depending on the whims of the particular society. 2. It means that morality can be dictated depending on who controls the society. 3. It means that harm isn’t a determining factor.
Let's assume for the moment that there is no God. Do we serve ourselves to dismiss Scripture's teachings in favor of a flavor of the day concept of subjective behavior? To the Dan Trabues of the world, some things appear to be self-evident. I would argue that such may be largely true as a result of having been born of a culture that was heavily influenced on this Scripture that we somehow can never trust for accuracy. Clearly, some parts of the world see as self-evident the "good" in killing off anyone who opposes your efforts to achieve wealth and comfort. Some see the "good" in cutting off the hand of the thief, or disposing the sexually immoral via stoning or throwing them off of high buildings. These things are self-evident to them, but abhorrent to us. So a "self-evident" code of determination is relative to a culture and not at all a fixed code of behavior on which the whole world agrees.
Even within a culture, such as ours, we can clearly see that determining morality on one's own is completely subjective. Indeed, within Christianity we see the same problem when the authority of Scripture is questioned. Without a fixed and unchanging source for our moral understanding, it really becomes "anything goes". One can rationalize anything and we see that this indeed is the case with "progressive" Christians...and progressives in general.
I've often said that even if God does not exist...even if He is just a fantasy that became a religion for billions of people, the moral teachings of the Christian Bible, including RULES from both Testaments, serve mankind best when followed "religiously". And because they serve us best, it is "self-evident" that the Christian code of behavior must be that fixed and unchangeable morality. There is no "harm" that befalls anyone when a society adopts and adheres to Christian teaching on morality.
I will point out, only for the benefit of others who may read this, that of course, you do not even understand my positions or what I've said. You're beating to death a strawman. I have reached the conclusion that you all are just not able to understand my actual words and points (giving doubt as to how well you might understand other written words) and so, I bear you no ill will.
But no amount of clarifying or explaining or pointing out that, "No, that's not what I said, not what I mean, not a correct summation of my points" has ever fixed that, so, I merely point out the fact that you have misstated my actual arguments and don't appear to understand them.
I will repeat and point out, only for the benefit of others who may read this, that of course, YOU do not even understand my positions or what I've said. YOU are beating to death a straw man. I have reached the conclusion that YOU fundamentalist types are just not able to understand my actual words and points (giving doubt as to how well you might understand other written words) and so, I bear you no ill will.
But no amount of clarifying or explaining or pointing out that, "No, that's not what I said, not what I mean, not a correct summation of my points" has ever fixed that for YOU, Marshall, Stan, et al, so, I merely point out the fact that you have misstated my actual arguments and don't appear to understand them.
Normal folk without this ideological bent that blinds them have no difficulty understanding my words and clarifications. Perhaps it's just an internet thing and, if we were in person, then YOU and your comrades wouldn't have this difficulty understanding what other people don't have difficulty understanding, I don't know.
And Dan is incapable of explaining his positions or demonstrating how we’re wrong. He’s especially concerned about doing so away from his domain where he’s in control.
Actually Craig, this is probably easily resolvable. Just go and find yourself one of your progressive friends. Have him read the post in question. I'm sure he or she can tell you that I HAVE explained my position, repeatedly, with clarifications and attempts to help you understand.
As a point of fact in the real world, it is observable that I have explained my positions. I've pointed out how it is wrong to say "I know this as a fact" about an idea found in the Bible where you're offering an OPINION and an INTERPRETATION and that opinions and interpretations, in that situation, are NOT known facts, they are subjective opinions.
For instance, whatever arguments one might offer about the "inerrant" nature of the Bible, ALL of those opinions ARE subjective opinions about a topic which you can't demonstrate or prove factual veracity.
You don't even have to wade through all of that post, you can just point to this one comment here and they can tell you, I'm sure, that I'm just offering an observable reality... that opinions about unproven and unprovable interpretations of biblical texts ARE subjective opinions, not known facts.
I get that you don't appear to understand that this DOES explain my position, but maybe if you have a trusted friend who is not beholden to fundamentalist/conservative ideology, they can help you understand it.
10 comments:
Be sure they don't carry that to its logical conclusion. "Well, then, anything is moral or immoral depending on my subjective view on it and you can't tell me otherwise."
If morality is determined by the subjective mores of each society, then it raises several problems I can see.
1. It means that any behavior can be both moral and immoral depending on the whims of the particular society.
2. It means that morality can be dictated depending on who controls the society.
3. It means that harm isn’t a determining factor.
Lots of CAPS and expletives also help.
Let's assume for the moment that there is no God. Do we serve ourselves to dismiss Scripture's teachings in favor of a flavor of the day concept of subjective behavior? To the Dan Trabues of the world, some things appear to be self-evident. I would argue that such may be largely true as a result of having been born of a culture that was heavily influenced on this Scripture that we somehow can never trust for accuracy. Clearly, some parts of the world see as self-evident the "good" in killing off anyone who opposes your efforts to achieve wealth and comfort. Some see the "good" in cutting off the hand of the thief, or disposing the sexually immoral via stoning or throwing them off of high buildings. These things are self-evident to them, but abhorrent to us. So a "self-evident" code of determination is relative to a culture and not at all a fixed code of behavior on which the whole world agrees.
Even within a culture, such as ours, we can clearly see that determining morality on one's own is completely subjective. Indeed, within Christianity we see the same problem when the authority of Scripture is questioned. Without a fixed and unchanging source for our moral understanding, it really becomes "anything goes". One can rationalize anything and we see that this indeed is the case with "progressive" Christians...and progressives in general.
I've often said that even if God does not exist...even if He is just a fantasy that became a religion for billions of people, the moral teachings of the Christian Bible, including RULES from both Testaments, serve mankind best when followed "religiously". And because they serve us best, it is "self-evident" that the Christian code of behavior must be that fixed and unchangeable morality. There is no "harm" that befalls anyone when a society adopts and adheres to Christian teaching on morality.
I will point out, only for the benefit of others who may read this, that of course, you do not even understand my positions or what I've said. You're beating to death a strawman. I have reached the conclusion that you all are just not able to understand my actual words and points (giving doubt as to how well you might understand other written words) and so, I bear you no ill will.
But no amount of clarifying or explaining or pointing out that, "No, that's not what I said, not what I mean, not a correct summation of my points" has ever fixed that, so, I merely point out the fact that you have misstated my actual arguments and don't appear to understand them.
Good luck.
So, Dan is incapable of explaining himself in a manner that can be understood.
I will repeat and point out, only for the benefit of others who may read this, that of course, YOU do not even understand my positions or what I've said. YOU are beating to death a straw man. I have reached the conclusion that YOU fundamentalist types are just not able to understand my actual words and points (giving doubt as to how well you might understand other written words) and so, I bear you no ill will.
But no amount of clarifying or explaining or pointing out that, "No, that's not what I said, not what I mean, not a correct summation of my points" has ever fixed that for YOU, Marshall, Stan, et al, so, I merely point out the fact that you have misstated my actual arguments and don't appear to understand them.
Normal folk without this ideological bent that blinds them have no difficulty understanding my words and clarifications. Perhaps it's just an internet thing and, if we were in person, then YOU and your comrades wouldn't have this difficulty understanding what other people don't have difficulty understanding, I don't know.
Good luck.
And Dan is incapable of explaining his positions or demonstrating how we’re wrong. He’s especially concerned about doing so away from his domain where he’s in control.
Actually Craig, this is probably easily resolvable. Just go and find yourself one of your progressive friends. Have him read the post in question. I'm sure he or she can tell you that I HAVE explained my position, repeatedly, with clarifications and attempts to help you understand.
As a point of fact in the real world, it is observable that I have explained my positions. I've pointed out how it is wrong to say "I know this as a fact" about an idea found in the Bible where you're offering an OPINION and an INTERPRETATION and that opinions and interpretations, in that situation, are NOT known facts, they are subjective opinions.
For instance, whatever arguments one might offer about the "inerrant" nature of the Bible, ALL of those opinions ARE subjective opinions about a topic which you can't demonstrate or prove factual veracity.
You don't even have to wade through all of that post, you can just point to this one comment here and they can tell you, I'm sure, that I'm just offering an observable reality... that opinions about unproven and unprovable interpretations of biblical texts ARE subjective opinions, not known facts.
I get that you don't appear to understand that this DOES explain my position, but maybe if you have a trusted friend who is not beholden to fundamentalist/conservative ideology, they can help you understand it.
You do have trusted liberal friends, I assume?
I do, and I have run your stuff past them, and they all have the same reaction we do.
The first step is admitting you have a problem.
Post a Comment