"WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO DO SO."
Dan made this emphatic assertion in the 5000 comment long morass that started in August. I think it's pretty interesting to see someone who claims the name of Christ, to empathically proclaim that "WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO...".
In this case, he's emphatically trying to claim that "WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO...", have a universally applicable, consistent, objective, standard of morality. That "WE" can construct a universally applicable, consistent, objective, standard for morality all by our selves. That we can use our "God given" faculties to construct a universal moral system. That our limited, finite, flawed, subjective, imperfect, (but "God given") faculties are up to the task.
If that claim is True, then why hasn't this happened? Why do we have entire societies that have concluded that things like FGM, child rape, disfiguring children, slavery, government appropriation of private property, and the like are moral and acceptable? Who is Dan to tell them that they're wrong?
Or, what about this.
What if "immoral" is functionally synonymous with "sin"? Would that change things? Secular culture and sociologists define morality as "Any system of behavior or mores that any given society, culture, tribe, or similar grouping define as acceptable and appropriate". (or something similar) This definition precludes any sort of universal moral code, it removes the ability of one culture to refer to the behavior of another culture as moral or immoral.
But what we (according to Dan) know with absolute, emphatic, certainty, is that "WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO DO SO" (Determine of something is moral). I wonder, in what other areas of life does Dan insist that "WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO..."?
101 comments:
Craig...
In this case, he's emphatically trying to claim that "WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO...", have a universally applicable, consistent, objective, standard of morality.
YOU DO NOT HAVE A UNIVERSAL APPLICABLE CONSISTENT OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF MORALITY.
Let me be clear:
YOU DO NOT HAVE A UNIVERSAL APPLICABLE CONSISTENT OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF MORALITY.
You don't, you just don't. If you had ANY integrity at all, you'd admit that you don't. Instead, you post bullshit comments like this suggesting that you do and I don't. The fact is clear:
YOU DO NOT HAVE A UNIVERSAL APPLICABLE CONSISTENT OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF MORALITY.
Let's start there.
Now, IF you think you do, then YOU can present your objective standard of morality, PRESENT IT.
If you're not making that claim, SAY SO.
But stop with the cowardly slanderous bullshit. Shame on you. Stop it.
Be clear:
DO YOU HAVE this mythic objective standard or morality? YES OR NO?
If you are going to claim that you do, PRESENT IT.
You don't and your constant insinuations are just so much more vomit.
You want to condemn ME for being honest while you continue with this intellectually cowardly and slanderously false insinuations? Grow up. Be a rational adult. I'm not even going to appeal to you to be Christian about this, just be a rational adult.
Stop the slander.
The fact is, WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO UNDERSTAND MORALITY. Do you disagree? Present your evidence instead of these cowardly insinuations. If you agree, then say so. But if you agree, then why attack me for stating what is obvious?
And not only is it obvious (that we can make reasonably moral decisions apart from the Bible), not only is it observable and demonstrable, it's also biblical. The Bible is clear that God wrote God's law on our hearts. That even the pagans recognize basic right and wrong. NOT THAT WE NEED THE BIBLE to tell us this. It's self evident and demonstrable.
HOW is it demonstrable? By watching atheists make moral decisions and be morally good people. People who are unaware of God or your conservative teachings can and do make morally good decisions because, OF COURSE, they can. You can't prove otherwise, liar.
Now seriously.
What in the name of all that is holy, good, decent and rational is objectionable about noting the reality that we can make moral decisions APART from the Bible? What is unbiblical about it?
Seriously, this is some piece of shit slander and cowardly as hell. Stop it, coward. Either prove that we DO need the Bible to make moral decisions or be a decent adult and apologize for this slander.
Thou shalt not bear false witness, pissant. Thou shalt not slander, you antichrist. Those who engage in such are NOT part of the realm of God.
Shame on you.
Craig...
I wonder, in what other areas of life does Dan insist that "WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO..."?
How about a list?
We don't need the Bible to recognize this attack from Craig as the anti-intellectual, anti-biblical, anti-Christ bullshit that it is.
We don't need the Bible to recognize that slavery is a great evil (something that I'm not sure that Craig can agree with because of his conservative/traditional-inspired amorality and lack of basic moral reasoning).
We don't need the Bible to get through day to day and be good people, following in the steps of Jesus EVEN IF we didn't know about his teachings.
We don't need the Bible to recognize that Craig can't even acknowledge basic observable reality.
We don't need the Bible to recognize that traditional conservative religious teachings like "utter depravity of humanity" or "even babies are sinners..." for the sick and depraved nonsense it is.
I could go on all day.
declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. ~Heb 8
declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. ~Jer 31
“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” ~Heb 10
I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart. ~Psalm 40
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. ~Rom 12
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them... ~Rom 2
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. ~Heb 4
...and if you are aware of biblical teaching, you know that I could continue citing such passages. And BEYOND THAT, as I've said, we can observe people not trained in the Bible or even aware of it who can and do observably, demonstrably make morally good decisions.
So, we see that the Bible is clear and the evidence is observable that we don't need the Bible to make moral decisions.
Apologize. Repent. Turn around and stop with this absurd and morally bad behavior.
If we don't need the Bible to recognize this observable reality, we certainly don't need Craig or any other Pharisee-types to tell us that.
Craig made a false claim, no matter how many times I've told him this is a false claim...
he's emphatically trying to claim that "WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO...", have a universally applicable, consistent, objective, standard of morality.
I've been incredibly clear that neither he nor I nor any other human being ever known has a universally applicable, consistent, objective, standard of morality. That is a false claim.
The Bible says don't make false claims, but Craig made the false claim anyway.
The Bible says to apologize when you've done wrong, but Craig won't apologize.
BUT, simple moral reasoning tells us not to make false claims, we all recognize the harm that can be done by making false claims. We do NOT need the Bible to tell us this. "Even the pagans" and others who don't read or accept the Bible recognize this WITHOUT the Bible.
AND, simple moral reasoning tells us that it's a good thing to apologize when we've made false claims. I find it much easier to get a sincere apology from non-believers than I can from people like Craig. Religious zealots are so very often quite clear that humanity is awful... EXCEPT for them because they are the ones that have the Truth that it makes it very hard for them to apologize even when confronted with the objective facts of their false claims and misdeeds... or at least that's been my experience for a certain subset of conservatives.
And for the record, a good number of religious conservatives I knew growing up, including my sainted parents, DID know how to apologize. This seems to be more of a modern problem for more recent conservatives.
Dan,
1. I'm going to leave your rantings up.
2. Since I am not the one who regularly labels actions or people as moral or immoral, I don't need to provide anything to support something I am not doing.
3. Since you are making claims that certain people or actions are universally and objectively immoral, then you should be able to provide a universal and objective moral code to support your claims.
4. You simply repeating something doesn't make it more True.
The problem you seem to be having is that you confuse an individual making an individual choice that that individual deems to be moral, with a moral code that applies to others. You may believe that slavery is immoral, yet other cultures have concluded that slavery is moral. Why is your cultural norm objectively superior to theirs? Why should your cultural or individual norm be foisted on other individuals or cultures?
The fact that you agree with a certain percentage of a society that a certain behavior is immoral, does not automatically translate to any society that has reached a different conclusion.
Look, if you want to posit a subjective moral code based on culturally agreed on norms and mores, that applies within each culture, society, tribe or group, go ahead. If you want to posit a subjective moral code based on consensus or majority rule, go ahead. Although morality by majority rule, seems oppressive when you realize that 50.1% can impose their morality on 49.9%, but at least it's a coherent, if subjective model.
Ultimately, I would argue that the only entity with the ability, authority, and temperament, to establish a universal, consistent, objective moral code would be a being like YHWH. That any lesser being's attempts to posit an objective, universal, consistent moral code will be imperfect at best, oppressive at worst.
The problem is that you literally said what you said, and you said it boldly, straghtforwardly, and in ALL CAPS.
If you want the ability to refer to actions as objectively immoral, as you frequently do, then you need an objective system of morality to ground your claim.
If you want to claim that there is absolutely zero possibility of a universal, objective moral code existing, then you have no grounding to refer to anything anyone beyond yourself does as immoral, because grounding a moral code in "self"automatically means that your "self" grounded moral code has all of the flaws, limitations, biases, and the like inherent in humanity.
Just because you want to believe otherwise, doesn't make the above two statements false.
It's interesting that your god who doesn't have rules, has all of a sudden written his rules in the hearts of all humanity. Yet somehow, sometimes, when humans disregard his rules, they're really only "minor" or "trivial" transgressions.
1. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength". Is this a command from YHWH to every human in all times, places, and circumstances? IS this one of the rules He has "written on" everyone's hearts?
2. "Love your neighbor as your self". Is this a command from YHWH to every human in all times, places, and circumstances? IS this one of the rules He has "written on" everyone's hearts?
3. "You shall not murder". Is this a command from YHWH to every human in all times, places, and circumstances? IS this one of the rules He has "written on" everyone's hearts?
4. "You shall not steal." Is this a command from YHWH to every human in all times, places, and circumstances? IS this one of the rules He has "written on" everyone's hearts?
5. "You shall not bear false witness." Is this a command from YHWH to every human in all times, places, and circumstances? IS this one of the rules He has "written on" everyone's hearts?
If the answer to any of the above questions is no, then please explain what the exceptions are, and how you know for certain that there are exceptions.
Dan,
When you say, "It's immoral for billionaires to use bankruptcy laws" (I'm paraphrasing, but it's close), are you claiming that it is always immoral for every billionaire, under every conceivable circumstance, to avail themselves of the every single protection offered under bankruptcy law?
Craig...
2. Since I am not the one who regularly labels actions or people as moral or immoral, I don't need to provide anything to support something I am not doing.
You keep objecting if I can't objectively prove a moral code. I'm saying we don't have one but that doesn't mean that we can't make REASONABLY moral decisions.
Now, either you think that you HAVE some secret objective code or you believe in moral anarchy and that there IS no moral code and we can do whatever we want.
Which is it? Make clear your objections to simple REASONABLY moral decision making and what the alternative is?
What IS your alternative?
Given that you seem to imply you have something (or worse, that you DON'T have any alternative!), it's a reasonable question. One that you have ignored and dodged for years.
And yes, of course you make moral claims all the time.
3. Since you are making claims that certain people or actions are universally and objectively immoral
I'm not. Not sure what problem you're having understanding English sentences. But from the very post that led to this one, I said in multiple times and multiple ways:
1. We do not have an objective, authoritative source
to state objectively provably that
THIS set of rules and beliefs are moral and others are not.
We don't have that. You don't have that.
Do you see there where I said, "We do not have an objective, authoritative source
to state objectively provably that
THIS set of rules and beliefs are moral and others are not..."? That "WE DON'T HAVE THAT" demonstrates that this false claim you continue to make is objectively, demonstrably false.
Craig...
When you say, "It's immoral for billionaires to use bankruptcy laws" (I'm paraphrasing, but it's close), are you claiming that it is always immoral for every billionaire, under every conceivable circumstance, to avail themselves of the every single protection offered under bankruptcy law?
I'm saying it's reasonably immoral in probably most scenarios. But I'm not living under a rule system, I'm living and operating under a grace system. I allow that there might be exceptions because humanity was not made for the rules, the rules were made for humanity.
Grace, man. Live into it. Accept it. Leave behind this legalism, it only leads to death and sin.
Re: the billionaire bankrupt question. Do you think it's NOT immoral generally speaking for billionaires to use bankruptcy laws to avoid paying their debts?
Craig...
"When you say, "It's immoral for billionaires to use bankruptcy laws" (I'm paraphrasing, but it's close),"
Just to be clear, what I've said is the morally rational claim that it's immoral for extremely wealthy people to use laws to AVOID PAYING THEIR DEBTS when they have their great wealth intact. Because of course it is. Even if the Bible never said how awful it is for the wealthy to avoid paying their laborers.
"You keep objecting if I can't objectively prove a moral code. I'm saying we don't have one but that doesn't mean that we can't make REASONABLY moral decisions."
No, I'm not. I'm saying that your ability to make "reasonably moral" decisions based on your individual, personal, subjective moral code, doesn't ground you to make objective claims about the morality of others. If you were to say: "According to my personal, subjective, moral code, I hold the opinion that X is wrong for me (and I wouldn't do X), and I suspect that others probably shouldn't do X either. Here is why I think so...", then there would be no problem. The problem is that you say: "Mr X is immoral.", you apply your subjective moral code in an objective way. In this specific instance, you seem to be arguing that it is (objectively) moral to apply certain laws selectively (or to exempt certain people from protection under the law) based on your subjective opinions about their economic status. Selective application of the law based on class seems immoral to me, definitely goes against the Biblical example of not showing partiality to any class under the law, and seems to violate US law that prevents discrimination based on class. I can't see how any moral code would enshrine class discrimination as moral, but you seem to think it is.
"Now, either you think that you HAVE some secret objective code or you believe in moral anarchy and that there IS no moral code and we can do whatever we want."
No, that would be incorrect.
"Which is it? Make clear your objections to simple REASONABLY moral decision making and what the alternative is?"
Your problem is that you've chosen to move the goal posts. I've never suggested that individual people can't make "reasonably" moral decisions about how to act based on their subjective, personal moral code. The problem arises when someone wants to make judgements about the morality of another person's actions. In the absence of a universal, objective, consistent moral code there is no foundation to judge the morality of someone else's actions.
According to a common definition of morality, each individual society, tribe, nation, family, etc establishes a moral code based on the accepted behaviors and mores of each society, which only apply within the society. If someone genuinely doesn't know something is immoral, how can they be criticized for a particular action?
"What IS your alternative?"
My pointing out the flaws in your construct doesn't require me to provide an alternative. You've made the claim that "Billionaires availing themselves of bankruptcy protection under US civil code and court supervision is not "moral"." If you can't articulate a moral code that applies universally, then you have no grounding to make the claim. Of course, your moral code also needs to accommodate discrimination based on economic class as "moral".
"Given that you seem to imply you have something (or worse, that you DON'T have any alternative!), it's a reasonable question. One that you have ignored and dodged for years."
No I haven't. I just don't see any reason to repeat myself, when you won't explain how your subjective moral code allows you to judge the morality of people following US civil law, under the supervision of the courts, and to engage in class discrimination. You'll need to demonstrate that your hunch is more that just your subjective opinion based on your prejudices against "the rich".
"And yes, of course you make moral claims all the time."
then please provide an example of where I've said that something is "moral" or "immoral". As always, provide the quote and link. You won't, but I have to repeat this anyway.
"I'm not. Not sure what problem you're having understanding English sentences. But from the very post that led to this one, I said in multiple times and multiple ways:"
Sure you are. You literally claimed the it's not "moral" for Billionaires to avail themselves of bankruptcy protection. This is literally an objective claim.
"1. We do not have an objective, authoritative source
to state objectively provably that
THIS set of rules and beliefs are moral and others are not.
We don't have that. You don't have that."
Yet despite you acknowledging that you have no authoritative, objective, universal, moral code, you keep insisting that certain things ARE NOT "moral".
"Do you see there where I said, "We do not have an objective, authoritative source
to state objectively provably that
THIS set of rules and beliefs are moral and others are not..."? That "WE DON'T HAVE THAT" demonstrates that this false claim you continue to make is objectively, demonstrably false."
!. If your assertion "falsifies" my claim, which it doesn't), then are you saying that yoru assertions is 100% objectively True?
2. My "claim" is that you can't make objective claims "X is not moral", based on a subjective foundation.
3. Since you haven't proven your assertion to be 100% objectively True, nor have you actually addressed the claim I actually made (objective moral claims can't be grounded in a subjective moral code), I'm at a loss as to how to respond.
"I'm saying it's reasonably immoral in probably most scenarios. But I'm not living under a rule system, I'm living and operating under a grace system. I allow that there might be exceptions because humanity was not made for the rules, the rules were made for humanity."
So then your answer is really. No.
"Grace, man. Live into it. Accept it. Leave behind this legalism, it only leads to death and sin."
Then why don't you extend grace to the billionaires you claim are acting in a manner that is not "moral"?
The reality is that you ARE living (or would like to be living) in a system where there is a rule against some billionaires, under some (undefined and vague) circumstances, availing themselves of the bankruptcy provisions present in the US civil legal code. You want the presumed moral high ground of calling billionaires immoral because they don't conform to your subjective opinions about what's moral.
"Just to be clear, what I've said is the morally rational claim that it's immoral for extremely wealthy people to use laws to AVOID PAYING THEIR DEBTS when they have their great wealth intact."
OK, you can equivocate all you want. But you literally are advocating discrimination against a certain class of people based on your subjective opinions regarding what you personally find rational and moral.
"Because of course it is. Even if the Bible never said how awful it is for the wealthy to avoid paying their laborers."
The Bible also speaks harshly against showing partiality under the law to people based on their economic class.
Look, I'm happy if you think that you "DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE" to inform your moral decisions. Even though you so frequently demonstrate that you DO NEED THE BIBLE even to the point of cherry picking proof texts to support your biased hunches, or ignoring THE BIBLE when it doesn't support your hunches.
" Do you think it's NOT immoral generally speaking for billionaires to use bankruptcy laws to avoid paying their debts?"
No, I do not find it objectively, universally, immoral for anyone to avail themselves of the bankruptcy protections offered to every person who lives in the US, under the supervision of the court, and with their creditors being given every opportunity to make their case before the judge.
As long as things are done with all appropriate legal due process, I don't see how it's immoral.
IF the billionaire lies, misleads, offers false evidence, commits fraud, or something similar, then it's a different story.
What if the creditors in this situation have falsely inflated their claims?
What if the creditors didn't perform the work they agreed to perform or didn't perform it property?
What if the creditors are also billionaires?
Does the type of bankruptcy determine the morality of the billionaire?
What is the debtor, after going through bankruptcy, does eventually pay back the creditors, does that mean that their use of bankruptcy was retroactively moral?
Ultimately, my problem with your assertion that billionaires who avail themselves of bankruptcy are immoral, is that it's really not a general statement, as much as it is an infantile attempt to bring Trump and your intense dislike of Trump, into a conversation where it has no place.
Craig...
"As long as things are done with all appropriate legal due process, I don't see how it's immoral."
Wow. It's NOT immoral to refuse to pay your working class hirees the money you have and OWE them if there's a law that allows you to avoid paying those workers?
I don't know what to tell you. Your moral compass is deeply broken. At least on this point.
Jesus, Lord, have mercy!
If there is just one thing that people can learn through Craig's interaction with Dan, it's that Dan is an unteachable, narcissistic, anti-Christian doctrine, fool.
Craig...
You literally claimed the it's not "moral" for Billionaires to avail themselves of bankruptcy protection. This is literally an objective claim.
No. It is literally a claim. I NEVER said bankruptcy for billionaires is objectively immoral. It is a REASONABLE moral claim that I'm guessing the vast majority of humanity - and especially for those who've been oppressed by the rich - would agree with.
Do you doubt that the majority of the world would agree with it?
That you can't call this immoral is amazing and bewildering. Legality does NOT equal Morality.
Craig...
my problem with your assertion that billionaires who avail themselves of bankruptcy are immoral, is that it's really not a general statement, as much as it is an infantile attempt to bring Trump and your intense dislike of Trump, into a conversation where it has no place.
Actually, in spite of what you assert, this has much less to do with Trump and much more to do with Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Jesus, with James the apostle and with nearly all the prophets and psalmists in the Bible and, well, with just basic common moral sense. YOU brought up Trump (who certainly is representative of the wealthy oppressors James so clearly and thorough condemns), not me.
You listed a series of questions...
What if the creditors in this situation have falsely inflated their claims?
What if the creditors didn't perform the work they agreed to perform or didn't perform it property?
What if the creditors are also billionaires?
None of these are the instances that I cited. The circumstances ALWAYS matter. If the creditors are complaining because the billionaire didn't pay them because they did no work and they raped his family and killed his dog and then the billionaire didn't pay them, THAT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SCENARIO.
I'm asking about the wealthy who use their wealth, power and privilege to avoid paying the debts to the workers they actually owe. You know, like James is clear about.
CAN YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS A GREAT EVIL, based on how strongly James (Jesus, the prophets, Mary, etc) condemn such abuse and oppression, even if you can't use your common moral sense to condemn it?
Why are you not able to use your common sense to condemn such atrocious behavior?
Why go to so much effort to defend the wealthy oppressor?
Craig...
I'm happy if you think that you "DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE" to inform your moral decisions.
You've created this whole post to complain about this premise... are you going to ever address the question for yourself? Do YOU think you are incapable of making moral decisions apart from the Bible?
If so, why? What's wrong with you?
I mean, I know there are sociopaths and narcissists who find it very difficult to understand morality, but for most of us, we "get" it. You don't? Are you getting help for that?
What about topics the Bible doesn't address, are you not able to form moral decisions apart from biblical guidance?
Craig...
Then why don't you extend grace to the billionaires you claim are acting in a manner that is not "moral"?
Because, in the example I gave, they were using their wealth and privilege and abusing the laws to AVOID paying debts they owed WHEN THEY HAD great wealth that they could afford to pay.
Because, as brother James says...
Now listen, you rich people,
weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.
Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.
Your gold and silver are corroded.
Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire.
You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers
who mowed your fields are crying out against you.
The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.
You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence.
You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.
You have condemned and murdered the innocent one
James the Apostle compares the wealthy man's REFUSAL TO PAY what he owed to his poor laborers as preparing themselves for the day of slaughter. He compares it to the slaughter of Jesus Christ, himself!
But you can't use your basic God-given moral reasoning to condemn it?
What's wrong with you, son?
Also, you've complained a time or two about the notion of "God-given moral reasoning..." Why? Is the Bible not clear enough for you? Do you NOT believe in the notion of the law of God being written upon our hearts?
Is it because that's not a perfect way of determining morality?
But YOU don't have a perfect way of determining morality, so what?
Craig...
Your problem is that you've chosen to move the goal posts. I've never suggested that individual people can't make "reasonably" moral decisions about how to act based on their subjective, personal moral code. The problem arises when someone wants to make judgements about the morality of another person's actions. In the absence of a universal, objective, consistent moral code there is no foundation to judge the morality of someone else's actions.
No goalpost has been moved. I've always been clear:
I. YOU have no objective provable moral test (as is obvious by your refusal to even TRY to present such). Nor do I, but I'm not saying I do or implying there's something wrong with not having such.
II. Nonetheless, it's very important to try to make moral decisions and not live in an amoral anarchy.
III. And that we can reach REASONABLE moral conclusions. Not perfect, but reasonable and conclusions which we humans can GENERALLY agree upon.
I'm not talking about individual moral decisions. I'm asking you:
DO YOU HAVE A SYSTEM TO OBJECTIVELY PROVE MORAL QUESTIONS FOR EVERYONE?
The answer is clear: You don't. You just don't. You don't even TRY to present any objectively provable moral system.
Look, if you COULD present such, I would love it. I want to do what is objectively morally correct. But you dodge and ignore the question.
That, I would say, is REASONABLY recognized as cowardly and immoral and intellectually dishonest. Shame on you.
Craig...
My pointing out the flaws in your construct
doesn't require me to provide an alternative.
I'm saying we have no objective, authoritative, provable way to prove our notions of morality. BUT, I'm saying we can reach reasonable conclusions about moral questions. IF you don't have an alternative to "reasonable conclusions about morality," then all that's left is moral anarchy.
I say that, if you give one single damn about moral matters and justice and decency, you sure in the name of all that is holy and good ought to either be prepared to give an alternative or admit you have not a single thing and it's all meaningless and we live in an amoral anarchy.
Which is it? Make yourself clear. These are important matters. You don't get to hide behind empty platitudes and vague suggestions.
I believe in taking a stand for morality, even if you and I can't prove it objectively. You?
Good Lord. Take a stand.
I believe everyone should pay their debts regardless of their financial situation. If one has the money and can pay off a debt without putting one's self at risk, one should do so ASAP. If one is already in dire straights when incurring the debt, such a person is still obliged. If one has great wealth, having great wealth doesn't guarantee bankruptcy protection is not justified. Details are necessary to make such a judgement. If there's no real world example of a billionaire using bankruptcy to avoid paying debts such a person could easily resolve, it's a meaningless hypothetical to use in order to rationalize rejecting Scripture as the primary source of one's moral understanding.
I think I can have a subjective moral code and still insist the behavior of another to be immoral, so long as I'm clear that I'm basing my judgement on my subjective moral code. To me, that behavior is unquestionably immoral. But I must be honest in acknowledging my made up "based on reason" subjective moral code doesn't guarantee the behavior in question is actually immoral. I simply believe it is.
Scripture, however, provides a solid basis for determining the moral quality of any given behavior such that I don't have to guess or suppose or inject any personal opinion not compelled by Scripture specifically. As to debts, spiritually speaking we all have a great debt we can't possibly pay, which is why we have Jesus. In the real world, dealing in human affairs of business and finance, we don't have a Jesus. We must pay our own debts except where the law provides some means to resolve them in another way...such as bankruptcy law.
I would also add that most "billionaires" who turn to bankruptcy provisions are doing so not on behalf of their personal wealth, but on behalf of the corporation to which they are connected. The corporation is an entity legally unique and apart from themselves. Covetous progressive fake Christians refuse to acknowledge the distinction nor the usual outcome of such situations wherein the "billionaire" is legally prohibited from running the entity which filed for bankruptcy protection. What's more, more often than not, bankruptcy doesn't necessarily result in the entity owed not getting paid, but getting paid in a different way or agreeing to different terms beneficial to each side. But covetous progressive fake Christians just love hating on the wealthy.
Craig...
2. My "claim" is that you can't make objective claims "X is not moral", based on a subjective foundation.
It's all we have, our subjective moral reasoning. You don't have anything else nor do I. So, unless you want to say it's all amoral anarchy, then FIGHT for morality, you little queasling.
Take a stand for morality and justice and decency.
Stop defending amorality and immorality by your silence and wimpery.
Or, better yet, IF you can prove objectively all (some? which ones?) moral rules, then be an adult and step up and do it. To pretend like you have some objective authoritative source and then remain quiet is just cowardly and intellectually bankrupt. Again I say with all my heart: I WOULD LOVE IF YOU COULD "PROVE" MORALITY, even if it showed I was wrong. Stop hiding and step up.
Or have the moral integrity to admit you can't.
Craig...
OK, you can equivocate all you want.
Being clear and specific about what I'm saying is NOT equivocating. It's precision and being clear. I'll accept an apology anytime you want to grow up and be a good person.
But you literally are advocating discrimination against a certain class of people based on your subjective opinions regarding what you personally find rational and moral.
I literally am not.
Or better yet, YES, I'm "discriminating" against the wealthy who would use their wealth and positions and rules to avoid paying debts to working class people that they legitimately owe while they (the rich cheaters and bastards) retain their great wealth.
I also "discriminate" against rapists who rape women and children or murderers or killers. I don't think they should be free to do so, EVEN IF it were legal.
I can't tell you how very strange it is that you're defending the rich oppressing the poor using legal means to do so. As if legality makes it moral. It doesn't!
And no, we can't "prove" that rich bastards cheating the poor is objectively immoral, but we can agree with James and Jesus and the prophets and call what is clearly immoral oppression for what it is.
Get on the right side of decency, Craig.
Are you okay? Seriously. I'm wondering. It's like you've gone downhill rationally and morally from when you first started writing on places we interact. Is it possible there's something going on with you?
Craig...
certain class of people based on your subjective opinions regarding what you personally find rational and moral.
It's not unique to me that I'm opposed to rich oppressors cheating their poor laborers out of money owed to them. James was quite adamantly opposed to it, as you'll recall. All good and decent people recognize the moral problem of such behavior, as far as I know. Certainly, I'm not in a minority position on this view.
Just because James didn't prove his position against the rich oppressors objectively didn't stop him from taking a stand on what is obviously the moral high ground.
I just don't think morality is as hard to understand as I guess you do.
Or again, are you okay?
Craig...
The Bible also speaks harshly against showing partiality under the law to people based on their economic class.
You mean like creating laws that wealthy people can use to avoid paying their poor laborers? That IS quite wrong.
Craig...
I would argue that the only entity with the ability, authority, and temperament, to establish a universal, consistent, objective moral code would be a being like YHWH.
Okay, but GOD is not telling us what is and isn't objectively moral on each of the various moral questions we may have. God's just not.
From there, you may want to argue, "But God has given us the Bible, and THAT is what God wants us to use to understand morality..." (is that what you're claiming?)
But then, first of all, where is the proof of this?
Secondly, WHOSE interpretation of the Bible on the various points are we going to rely upon? Craig's? Dan's? Billy Graham's? WHO gets to make these calls? The pope? The Southern Baptist church? Craig's particular church?
WHO?
And once we reach that point, it then becomes a question of: WHO SAYS that Craig gets to make these calls? Or the churches or human traditions that Craig agrees with? On what basis and authority? That THEY assure us their human traditions are the "right ones..." Says WHO?
Additionally, "the Bible" never addresses the last cookie question (and the endless variations on it, potentially). How do we know what is the "objective" answer to those questions? The Bible never tackles nuclear bombs, abortion, LGBTQ rights, bicycles vs gas cars vs mass transit, etc, etc. What of all the areas the Bible doesn't address, where do we get "objective" answers? Based on what?
Do you see the endless holes in your (perhaps) argument? Or do you have some other fall back beyond just simplistically saying, "the Bible is our rule book..."?
Craig...
I would argue that the only entity with the ability, authority, and temperament, to establish a universal, consistent, objective moral code would be a being like YHWH.
Okay, but GOD is not telling us what is and isn't objectively moral on each of the various moral questions we may have. God's just not.
From there, you may want to argue, "But God has given us the Bible, and THAT is what God wants us to use to understand morality..." (is that what you're claiming?)
But then, first of all, where is the proof of this?
Secondly, WHOSE interpretation of the Bible on the various points are we going to rely upon? Craig's? Dan's? Billy Graham's? WHO gets to make these calls? The pope? The Southern Baptist church? Craig's particular church?
WHO?
And once we reach that point, it then becomes a question of: WHO SAYS that Craig gets to make these calls? Or the churches or human traditions that Craig agrees with? On what basis and authority? That THEY assure us their human traditions are the "right ones..." Says WHO?
Additionally, "the Bible" never addresses the last cookie question (and the endless variations on it, potentially). How do we know what is the "objective" answer to those questions? The Bible never tackles nuclear bombs, abortion, LGBTQ rights, bicycles vs gas cars vs mass transit, etc, etc. What of all the areas the Bible doesn't address, where do we get "objective" answers? Based on what?
Do you see the endless holes in your (perhaps) argument? Or do you have some other fall back beyond just simplistically saying, "the Bible is our rule book..."?
Anon,
"Wow. It's NOT immoral to refuse to pay your working class hirees the money you have and OWE them if there's a law that allows you to avoid paying those workers?"
If you're going to make shit up and pretend I said it, then just stop. It's a waste of my time to correct you.
"You've created this whole post to complain about this premise... are you going to ever address the question for yourself?"
Sure, but it's not like I've been silent on this.
"Do YOU think you are incapable of making moral decisions apart from the Bible?"
I think that I am capable of making relatively moral decisions for myself, based on my self interest, experience, and filtered through my subjective opinions. I don't however think that those relatively moral decisions are binding or or applicable to others. I can certainly say that X is moral for me, but I have no basis to apply it to anyone else. Because it's my personal, subjective, limited, moral code.
"If so, why? What's wrong with you?"
Because I don't exalt myself and my Reason beyond their appropriate places. besides being a fallen, sinful, limited human being created by YHWH, saved by Christ Jesus, and striving to do my best, there's nothing wrong with me that Jesus hasn't fixed.
"I mean, I know there are sociopaths and narcissists who find it very difficult to understand morality, but for most of us, we "get" it. You don't? Are you getting help for that?"
Nope. But calling someone you've never met and don't know a sociopath, and narcissist, is not an effective way to win friends and influence people.
"What about topics the Bible doesn't address, are you not able to form moral decisions apart from biblical guidance?"
I try very hard to apply Biblical principles to things the Bible doesn't specifically address. Am I perfect at it, no.
"But you can't use your basic God-given moral reasoning to condemn it?"
The problem is with your vague, undetailed, example which is constructed NOT based on real specific events, but on an attempt to make an objective moral claim, based on your subjective moral code.
"What's wrong with you, son?"
Aside from what I've already mentioned, just having to waste time with your idiocy.
"Also, you've complained a time or two about the notion of "God-given moral reasoning..." Why?"
Because it appears you are trying to elevate your subjective moral reasoning, given by YHWH (but limited, imperfect, and finite), with how YHWH thinks, reasons, and treats sin.
"Is the Bible not clear enough for you? Do you NOT believe in the notion of the law of God being written upon our hearts?"
It's interesting when you proof text like this. I guess the notion of YHWH having rules (laws, commandments) is convenient when you think it helps your hunches. Of course I acknowledge this, I also acknowledge that we are fallen, imperfect, limited, finite, etc, beings who will distort or ignore God's law when it's convenient for ourselves.
"Is it because that's not a perfect way of determining morality?"
I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never claimed to be able to have a perfect understanding of morality, but that's my limitation, not the fact that there is no such thing as objective morality. I'm not perfect, YHWH is.
"But YOU don't have a perfect way of determining morality, so what?"
So what. If you want to go it yourself and choose to ignore the Bible when crafting your personal, subjective, imperfect, moral code, you are free to make that choice.
"DO YOU HAVE A SYSTEM TO OBJECTIVELY PROVE MORAL QUESTIONS FOR EVERYONE?"
Since I've never claimed to have perfect access to such a system, the answer would be no. The question might be: "Is there a better option for a moral system that doesn't rely on individual, subjective, choices? Or that's better than 50.1% imposing their morality on the 49.9%?
The problem you have is that when I don't make claims, I don't have to support claims I don't make.
The existence of on objective, universal system of morality is not dependent on your ability to perceive or prove it's existence.
"It's all we have, our subjective moral reasoning. You don't have anything else nor do I."
By all means, prove these two very specific claims of objective fact. I'll wait.
"So, unless you want to say it's all amoral anarchy, then FIGHT for morality, you little queasling."
No, I'm saying that if morality is judged by what you perceive the "majority of the world" thinks, than simply admit that you are advocating majority (or your perception of the majority), rule as your moral code and stick to that consistently.
"queasling" isn't a word, you idiot.
The problem with your majority morality, is that the majority has a tendency to change it's mind.
"I can't tell you how very strange it is that you're defending the rich oppressing the poor using legal means to do so. As if legality makes it moral. It doesn't!"
Doesn't making shit up and pretending as if someone else actually said the shit you made up run afoul of your majority rules moral code?
"You mean like creating laws that wealthy people can use to avoid paying their poor laborers? That IS quite wrong."
No. Like intentionally applying the law inequitably against either rich or poor based on their economic status or social class.
For someone who DO(es) NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO establish morality, you don't seem to be able to do so without cherry picking proof texts from the Bible which you claim you DO NOT NEED. You seem to have two options to cherry pick morality from, 1. The Bible, 2. The alleged majority of people in the world.
"Okay, but GOD is not telling us what is and isn't objectively moral on each of the various moral questions we may have. God's just not."
1. That's quite a claim, prove it.
2. Isn't it possible that YHWH has given us enough information, and general principles to allow us to reach reasonable conclusions about what He might prefer us to do?
"From there, you may want to argue, "But God has given us the Bible, and THAT is what God wants us to use to understand morality..." (is that what you're claiming?)"
Not exactly, but it's a reasonable question. Did YHWH give us scripture and expect that we'd use that to test what our "hearts" tell us to do, or did He expect that we'd ignore scripture when our "hearts" told us too?
"But then, first of all, where is the proof of this?"
I'm sorry, I can't give you proof you'll accept, and you clearly won't prove your claims. So, why don't your prove the claims I've asked you to and then I'll see what I want to do.
"Secondly, WHOSE interpretation of the Bible on the various points are we going to rely upon? Craig's? Dan's? Billy Graham's? WHO gets to make these calls? The pope? The Southern Baptist church? Craig's particular church? WHO?"
You probably won't like this answer, but it's what I've got. Ultimately, YHWH is going to Judge us. I'd argue that the only interpretation of the law that matters is that of the one who will s it in judgement. Unless, you plan to quibble with YHWH and try to bargain down your sins. Is that your plan?
"And once we reach that point, it then becomes a question of: WHO SAYS that Craig gets to make these calls? Or the churches or human traditions that Craig agrees with? On what basis and authority? That THEY assure us their human traditions are the "right ones..." Says WHO?"
I've never once put myself in the position of making these kinds of decisions for others. Of course the problem you have is that you haven't explained how your subjective (majority rules) answers these questions, or why those answers are the best answers. You're literally arguing that a majority consensus of human traditions (since you'VE been clear that YOU DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE, you're only left with human traditions) is the best answer. Unfortunately you can't explain why a majority rules, subjective tradition is objectively better than an attempt to follow YHWH's commands to the best of our ability.
"Additionally, "the Bible" never addresses the last cookie question (and the endless variations on it, potentially). How do we know what is the "objective" answer to those questions? The Bible never tackles nuclear bombs, abortion, LGBTQ rights, bicycles vs gas cars vs mass transit, etc, etc. What of all the areas the Bible doesn't address, where do we get "objective" answers? Based on what?"
It does. Because taking the cookie is directly ignoring the treat others as you treat yourself second commandment. Some of those things fall clearly under specific principles, others don't and therefor are up to the individual.
"Do you see the endless holes in your (perhaps) argument? Or do you have some other fall back beyond just simplistically saying, "the Bible is our rule book..."?"
Yet you're the one putting forth an argument, I've been too busy pointing out the holes in your hunches, and unproven claims to have actually articulated an argument of my own. maybe you should be more worried about the flaws and unproven claims you've made, than on trying to make up an argument based on your guesses and pretend that your made up argument is mine.
I said...
"Okay, but GOD is not telling us what is and isn't objectively moral on each of the various moral questions we may have. God's just not."
Craig responded...
1. That's quite a claim, prove it.
IF someone is making an incredible claim with no proof to support it, the onus is on THAT person to support the claim, not the person who says, "There's no evidence to support that claim."
If you said that purple monkeys with wings live on the dark side of the moon and I respond, saying that this is ridiculous and stupidly false... you don't get to say, "PROVE IT." YOU would be the one making the crazy-sounding claim where no one has any data to prove it.
DO you believe that God IS "telling us what is and isn't objectively moral on each of the various moral questions we may have."
I'M saying that there is NO KNOWN DATA to support that claim. YOU have to support it if you want to make it. I'm saying it's a BS claim.
That ball's in your court.
Craig...
2. Isn't it possible that YHWH has given us enough information, and general principles to allow us to reach reasonable conclusions about what He might prefer us to do?
This is PRECISELY what I'm saying. We have sufficient insight and information to make REASONABLE conclusions about moral questions. God has given us a brain. God has given us the ability to reason (most of us). We CAN reach reasonable moral conclusions. That's what I've been saying.
Are you agreeing with me now?
OR, are you saying, "there are words in the Bible and if you interpret them the way I and my traditionalist comrades do, then God has given you enough info to make reasonable moral decisions..."? And if so, who made you and conservatives/traditionalists the arbiters?
Are you limiting the ability to make moral decisions as ONLY based on what is in the Bible?
If so, are you saying that ANY moral interpretations based on biblical reading are all equally reasonable to make moral decisions?
Or are you limiting it to only SOME interpretations and if so, which ones? Based on what criteria? According to whose authority?
Art,
I apologize if it seemed like I wasn't going to respond. After slogging through the majority of the 31 comments Dan left, I ran out of time.
"I think I can have a subjective moral code and still insist the behavior of another to be immoral, so long as I'm clear that I'm basing my judgement on my subjective moral code. To me, that behavior is unquestionably immoral. But I must be honest in acknowledging my made up "based on reason" subjective moral code doesn't guarantee the behavior in question is actually immoral. I simply believe it is."
This is exactly the point I've made elsewhere. As long as you are clear that you are only offering your opinion about another's actions, I see no problem with a subjective moral code. The problem comes when someone states that an act is (objectively) immoral, based on a subjective criteria.
I see no possible way to get to an objective moral code, by subjective means.
"Scripture, however, provides a solid basis for determining the moral quality of any given behavior such that I don't have to guess or suppose or inject any personal opinion not compelled by Scripture specifically. As to debts, spiritually speaking we all have a great debt we can't possibly pay, which is why we have Jesus. In the real world, dealing in human affairs of business and finance, we don't have a Jesus. We must pay our own debts except where the law provides some means to resolve them in another way...such as bankruptcy law."
Again, my point exactly. The problem comes when people quibble about the authority of scripture/the authority of YHWH. Which devolves into pointless blather very quickly.
"I would also add that most "billionaires" who turn to bankruptcy provisions are doing so not on behalf of their personal wealth, but on behalf of the corporation to which they are connected. The corporation is an entity legally unique and apart from themselves. Covetous progressive fake Christians refuse to acknowledge the distinction nor the usual outcome of such situations wherein the "billionaire" is legally prohibited from running the entity which filed for bankruptcy protection. What's more, more often than not, bankruptcy doesn't necessarily result in the entity owed not getting paid, but getting paid in a different way or agreeing to different terms beneficial to each side. But covetous progressive fake Christians just love hating on the wealthy."
Once again, excellent point. I wish I would have thought of it. I fear that when some leftists speak on these matters, without really understanding how things work, that they oversimplify the process through ignorance of the process.
Dan has been asking me to "prove" the existence of an objective moral code, and I've given it a lot of thought. I believe that I have a pretty good and simple way to make a reasonable case for one.
However, I realized that the problem with making that case is Dan will demand that I "prove" my underlying premises. Which are as follows.
1. In order to have an objective, universal, moral law, there needs to be a "Lawgiver" that is in a position to do so.
2. As a Christian, I would posit that YHWH as revealed in scripture is that "Lawgiver".
3. As a Christian, I would posit that The Bible is our best possible option to leaen about YHWH, and about His moral law.
Dan will likely, as he has done in the past say something like, "While I believe something similar, you cannot prove those things to be True.".
So, while I believe and have shared with Dan multiple excellent arguments in favor of the existence of YHWH, I've never seen him engage with any, or change his hunch. Based on my past experience the likelihood of Dan choosing not to focus on the lack of "proof", is small. Therefore I'm forced to conclude that it's a waste of my time to continue.
I'm compelled to point out that Dan also has unproven/unproveable premises that underlie his subjective moral code, the only difference is that those premises are based completely within Dan. His Reason, his powers of observation, his small samples size, his prejudices and biases, and his assumptions. He's likely to simply state that he's presenting "reality" as a way to avoid proving his presumptions, or to blithely assert that something is "self evident", as if such an assertion removes the burden of proof from his claims.
So, unless and until Dan proves his underlying premises to be True, proves the claims I've asked about in previous comments, and demonstrates how how can apply a subjective moral code to others in an objective fashion, I see no reason to accede to his demands.
Craig...
"1. In order to have an objective, universal, moral law, there needs to be a "Lawgiver" that is in a position to do so.
That is certainly a premise, but it's not a given and it's not provable, so, it's literally not objectively proven.
Am I mistaken that this is an unproven subjective opinion? One you don't even try to prove, right?
This might make sense from a legalistic point of view, but there are certainly alternatives.
For instance, what of a universe that recognizes (either through God or just observational, that some actions, attitudes cause more harm, whereas others cause less harm and other actions are beneficial... and that it's just rational to do unto others as you'd have them do unto you?
I can expand, if you'd like. The point being, this is literally an unproven subjective opinion.
More...
Craig...
"2. As a Christian, I would posit that YHWH as revealed in scripture is that "Lawgiver"."
Ok, you can certainlyposit that. But it's still an unproven, subjective opinion, not even close to a proven objective fact.
How am I wrong?
"3. As a Christian, I would posit that The Bible is our best possible option to leaen about YHWH, and about His moral law."
Again, these are literally subjective posits, not proven objective data. How am I wrong?
Beyond that, this just further solidifies my point. Even if we can learn about God and morality in the Bible, where is the gage for which interpretation is objective?
Is this your "proof..."?
Craig...
"However, I realized that the problem with making that case is Dan will demand that I "prove" my underlying premises. Which are as follows."
If you're claiming to have a provable objective system of morality, what's wrong with asking for proof?
Is it possible you're starting to recognize you have no way of objectively proving an objective moral code? That's what happened to me, which is when I stopped making the claim.
Returning to your third point, EVEN IF some agreed with your first two unproven theories, how does the third point advance you to an objectively proven system of morality?
What does that even mean in these theories of yours... that everyone who reads the Bible in the right way, that they'll have objectively proven moral answers to all questions of morality?
I don't think you think that.
So, what does it mean, given that we'll still be imperfect humans with flawed and imperfect understanding, right?
Or do you believe in a subset of perfect Christians?
"I'm compelled to point out that Dan also has unproven/unproveable premises that underlie his subjective moral code, the only difference is that those premises are based completely within Dan..."
And where, precisely, are your premises made? The belly of God? When you read the Bible and achieve perfect understanding on moral issues, what precisely confirms your perfect proven objective moral understanding? A warm feeling within your own belly?
I'm compelled to point out that your unproven/unprovable premises are, likewise, subjective, as you've made abundantly clear now.
I suspect that you're realizing how fully subjective and irrational your claims of objective "proof" are, now.... but you can't find it within yourself to back down. Human pride and hubris and all that.
Let it go.
Craig...
"1. In order to have an objective, universal, moral law, there needs to be a "Lawgiver" that is in a position to do so...."
A question that this unsupported premise begs is, who says we HAVE an objective, universal, moral law? Where is the evidence for it?
I mean, I get that we may WISH for it... but what if it isn't a thing? A reality that's available in an imperfect world?
We might similarly hold a premise that, In order for humans to fly through the air without the aid of wings or mechanical devices, there needs to be a Flight Giver who enables that to happen...
But the premise fails because it's just not a given in the real world.
"DO you believe that God IS "telling us what is and isn't objectively moral on each of the various moral questions we may have.""
No.
I guess all that means that it's just one more example of you making claims and not proving them, or modifying them so you can avoid proving the claim as originally made.
"That is certainly a premise, but it's not a given and it's not provable, so, it's literally not objectively proven."
Strangely enough, you seem to have no problem assuming that your unproven premises don't need to be proven. If I'm not mistake, I said that this response was exactly why I wasn't going to go
"Am I mistaken that this is an unproven subjective opinion? One you don't even try to prove, right?"
Not exactly, more like a reasonable, rational conclusion drawn from the existing evidence. You're right that I am not going to try to prove this to you again, when I've previously provided you all sorts of evidence which you never interacted with in any way. I'm a finite person with limited time, and I choose to spend that limited time on more productive pursuits.
"This might make sense from a legalistic point of view, but there are certainly alternatives."
Or from a Biblical point of view. But let's hear your alternatives.
"For instance, what of a universe that recognizes (either through God or just observational, that some actions, attitudes cause more harm, whereas others cause less harm and other actions are beneficial... and that it's just rational to do unto others as you'd have them do unto you?"
That's essentially the naturalist/Darwinist/materialist construct, and there's literally no evidence for it. Because it's ultimately either selfish or utilitarian, "moral" decisions are based on what benefits the majority. It's an alternative, but it's not automatically universal or objective.
"I can expand, if you'd like. The point being, this is literally an unproven subjective opinion."
Don't bother with spinning more fantasy. You can't prove the claims you've made, and likely won't prove any of this regurgitated crap.
"How am I wrong?"
You've never ever been wrong, not even once.
"Again, these are literally subjective posits, not proven objective data. How am I wrong?"
Again, you're not wrong and never have been.
"Beyond that, this just further solidifies my point. Even if we can learn about God and morality in the Bible, where is the gage for which interpretation is objective?"
There is absolutely zero possible way for us to ever know anything, it's all just one big guessing game, and if we guess wrong, we're screwed.
"Is this your "proof..."?"
No. Maybe you missed the point where I explained why I wasn't going to use my limited time, and finite resources, to try to "prove" this again. I've literally predicted your response, because it's the same response you've given before. I've given you all sorts of opportunities to look at the arguments that are available at the click of a mouse, I'm not wasting my time beating a dead horse again.
"If you're claiming to have a provable objective system of morality, what's wrong with asking for proof?"
I'm not, and therefore it's simply a tactic to draw attention away from the fact that you can't prove any of the claims you've made in this thread.
"Is it possible you're starting to recognize you have no way of objectively proving an objective moral code? That's what happened to me, which is when I stopped making the claim."
Anything is possible. I just realized that your demands for "proof" aren't really because you're interested in actually confronting the evidence, as much as a tactic designed to move the conversation away from the unproven claims, and massive flaws in your construct. I was clear that IF I was going to make any claims, that they would start with certain premises. But that was a hypothetical. If you won't prove your claims and the premises they're based on, I see no reason to even make the attempt.
"Returning to your third point, EVEN IF some agreed with your first two unproven theories, how does the third point advance you to an objectively proven system of morality?"
It doesn't and isn't intended to.
"What does that even mean in these theories of yours... that everyone who reads the Bible in the right way, that they'll have objectively proven moral answers to all questions of morality?"
No, perhaps you should read my comments more closely if you really want the answers instead of just blowing smoke.
"I don't think you think that."
Why would you think that I care one iota about what you think?
"So, what does it mean, given that we'll still be imperfect humans with flawed and imperfect understanding, right?"
Theoretically, it might mean that the existence of all sorts of things is not dependent on our ability to perfectly understand them.
"Or do you believe in a subset of perfect Christians?"
No. I believe in a totality of imperfect, fallen, sinful, Christians saved, forgiven, and made clean by the finished work of Jesus.
Craig...
"Strangely enough, you seem to have no problem assuming that your unproven premises don't need to be proven."
Noting that your premise is literally NOT proven... that you didn't even try to offer proof... is just Noting reality. IF you did offer objective proof, ALL you have to do is point to it. A series of unsupported premises is literally not proof.
Do you not understand how deeply weird this is?
My opinions on moral questions can't be proven or disproven, nor can yours. If something can't be proved objectively, then one cannot prove it... what are you talking about?
The difference is that I'm not claiming it can be proven objectively. You appear to be.
Craig...
"Not exactly, more like a reasonable, rational conclusion drawn from the existing evidence."
But it literally IS subjective. YOU, personally, think it's reasonable, but others strongly disagree with you. You've literally not proven it objectively, just literally offered a subjective opinion.
How am I mistaken?
"And where, precisely, are your premises made? The belly of God? When you read the Bible and achieve perfect understanding on moral issues, what precisely confirms your perfect proven objective moral understanding? A warm feeling within your own belly?"
Excellent job of failing to do what you demand of others, and instead resort to snarky, sarcastic, rhetorical questions. Thank you for demonstrating that you have no interest in actually demonstrating that you can prove your claims and premises, but in simply looking for ways to divert attention from you're failures.
My premises are formed from study of Scripture, research, and listening. I'll simply note that your snark, doesn't hide the fact that you can't answer your own questions.
"I suspect that you're realizing how fully subjective and irrational your claims of objective "proof" are, now.... but you can't find it within yourself to back down. Human pride and hubris and all that."
The problem is that I haven't made any claims of "objective proof". You are literally criticizing me for something that you made up out of whole cloth. I'd have thought that you'd adhere to your subjective moral code and not make shit up and attribute it to others. The problem is that this is one more instance where you can't actually prove that I've said what you claim, so you brazenly pretend that your assertion is proof enough.
"1. In order to have an objective, universal, moral law, there needs to be a "Lawgiver" that is in a position to do so...."
"A question that this unsupported premise begs is, who says we HAVE an objective, universal, moral law? Where is the evidence for it?"
Well, if we are to have something that is universal and objective, then it would logically follow that the source would also be universal and objective. How do you magically turn subjective opinion into objective fact?
"I mean, I get that we may WISH for it... but what if it isn't a thing? A reality that's available in an imperfect world?"
I don't know. I have no idea how to answer your hypothetical question. I guess that'd mean that the best we have is a subjective, imperfect, regularly changing moral code that varies from place to place and time to time, and we give up the standing to describe other's behavior as moral or immoral.
" We might similarly hold a premise that, In order for humans to fly through the air without the aid of wings or mechanical devices, there needs to be a Flight Giver who enables that to happen..."
We also might hold the premise that Dan is desperate to avoid the continual pointing out of his unproven claims, unsupported premises, and the holes in his hunches, that he's reduced to this sort of bullshit. Designed to waste time and divert attention, instead of to actually move the conversation forward.
"But the premise fails because it's just not a given in the real world."
Ok, prove that claim. Or I'll just add it to the rest of your unproven claim.
Dan,
What's interesting in your vehement commenting in this thread, is that you seem to have forgotten one thing. We agree. I agree that you have the ability to construct a subjective, limited, imperfect, regularly changing moral code of some sort, and to then seek consensus to the point that you can impose this moral code on others. I agree that you can do all of this without once needing THE BIBLE to do so. We agree on this.
Where we don't agree is that you seem to want to apply your subjective (and all the rest) moral code AS IF it was objective. You relish the authority to say to "the rich" that they are "immoral". Yet, you can't seem to do so, WITHOUT APPEALING TO THE BIBLE.
It's like you want the benefits of an objective moral code, without the restrictions and external authority of an objective moral code.
Finally, I plead guilty to an improper use of terminology. You are talking about a moral code. YHWH, Jesus, and scripture talks about a "moral law". I apologize.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiw8GB3cZ5M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0
"it's just not a given in the real world."
When you say things like this, it makes me wonder exactly how much you know about the arguments for the existence of God solidly based in science, and philosophy, and expounded by people infinitely more educated and conversant in the evidence than you are.
I've posted 3 links to videos (you've been very clear that you aren't interested in reading entire books about these topics) that will give you plenty of things to consider.
I know this is likely a waste of my time, because you are obviously way more informed and educated on these matters than any of the experts are, but you can't say that I didn't offer to point you in the direction of some of what you claim to want.
DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTIVE MORAL LAW, ONE THAT YOU CAN OBJECTIVELY PROVE IS OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL?
IF SO, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
IF SO, WHERE IS IT?
Why play games? Make yourself clear. These are extremely reasonable questions.
Step up.
Craig...
"Where we don't agree is that you seem to want to apply your subjective (and all the rest) moral code AS IF it was objective..."
No. You're flatly, observable factually mistaken.
What I'M saying is that we can REASONABLY agree on moral notions (laws, codes, rules, whatever). I'm stating that morality is REASONABLE.
I've been abundantly clear that none of us can objectively authoritatively prove our moral notions. A point which you completely prove by your whole-hearted inability to even begin to provide.
Now, do you agree that you can't "prove" your moral laws?
As to your videos... WTH? Do you think they are providing objective proof of an objective moral code??
If so, WHERE?
I'm guessing you're thinking if you can point to reason-based "proofs" of a Creator God, that this gets us to some sort of moral code that can be objectively known to at least some human (??? It really would help if you'd clarify what it is you're arguing FOR, as opposed to empty gainsaying of my comments)... but it doesn't. EVEN IF we concede a Creator God (which I, of course, believe), that doesn't get us to a moral code that can be...
A. Objectively known or
B. Partially objectively known
C. To all human, or
D. Some human...
Or whatever it is you're arguing in favor of. Perhaps make clear what it is your belief is.
"DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTIVE MORAL LAW, ONE THAT YOU CAN OBJECTIVELY PROVE IS OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL?"
Not in my possession, no. Do you have any moral code of any sort that you can demonstrate to be universal?
"IF SO, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?"
I didn't say anything of the sort, so I don't mean anything by your words. Why won't you do what you demand of me?
"IF SO, WHERE IS IT?"
Hidden by your arrogance, hubris, and myopia.
It's fascinating to me that even though I've agreed with you that you DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO construct a subjective, imperfect, changeable, localized, moral code, and that this moral code can be imposed on a minority by a majority, that you won't simply accept that agreement and move on. You seem compelled to demonstrate (without any actual proof beyond your personal opinions) that your hunches about this subjective moral code must be accepted by others/everyone. Hence your insistence that "WE" (undefined, vague, and assumed) "DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE".
Why not just own the fact that YOU, and you alone, "DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE" to form your own personal, subjective, moral code and be done with it? Why keep trying to browbeat those of us who want you to prove your claims beyond merely stating that they are "self evident".
Craig...
It's fascinating to me that even though I've agreed with you that you DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO construct a subjective, imperfect, changeable, localized, moral code, and that this moral code can be imposed on a minority by a majority
Not what I've said. At the same time, IF the majority of the people recognize how evil it is for men to rape children, do you think we should NOT impose that moral code on the minority (like you, I guess?) that don't understand that it's wrong to rape children?
But here is the main point:
I asked...
"DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTIVE MORAL LAW, ONE THAT YOU CAN OBJECTIVELY PROVE IS OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL?"
And you responded...
Not in my possession, no.
So, you have NO WAY of objectively proving any moral code and you're acknowledging that?
Good for you. That's a step towards reality.
AND you don't think we can reasonably use reason-based/harm-based/human-rights based conclusions to impose (either by law or by culture) condemnation (even if it's not provable) on child rapists and rich oppressors, is that what you're saying?
Are you saying you don't think ANY bad behaviors (that we may not be able to objectively prove, which you acknowledge now) should be condemned?
Or, if you DO think some behaviors (child rape?) can and should be condemned harshly, WHY do you think that, since you can't prove it?
OR, are you saying that you DO think it's reasonable to make moral judgments against others (child rapists, for instance) even if it's not provable?
Such a strange, strange conversation.
We now agree that neither of us can PROVE our hunches about morality and YOU (but not me) appear to be saying that you have no reason to strongly condemn child rapists. Strange, strange, strange.
I asked...
"DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTIVE MORAL LAW, ONE THAT YOU CAN OBJECTIVELY PROVE IS OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL?"
And you responded...
Not in my possession,
no.
You clearly answered my direct question (finally!) with a slightly confusing but still clear, "NO." But seeking clarification, I asked for, well, clarification:
"So, you have NO WAY of objectively proving any moral code and you're acknowledging that?"
To which you responded...
No. I haven't said that.
And with that bit of inane, moronic, degenerate, un-Christian, anti-reason cowardice, I'm done.
I've asked and asked you to give clear answers and you ALWAYS come back with these vague sort of answers and half-answers and obfuscation and you're just straining grace to a breaking point.
Repent. Grow up. Be an adult. Or at least, stop with the cowardice and perversions of decency and reason.
If you ever want to answer directly and clearly, just let me know. I AM curious, but will play these childish games only so long.
Lord have mercy on Craig and the modern "conservative" "traditional" religious cowards.
"And with that bit of inane, moronic, degenerate, un-Christian, anti-reason cowardice, I'm done."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!
You were done when you decided to avoid proving your claims, by trying to get me to prove claims I haven't made. When you decided to stop answering my questions, in favor of asking questions based on your made up hunches about what you thought I'd said.
What's interesting is that you are describing my behavior in terms that are making objective/universal claims, without actually having an objective/universal standard to do so.
My attempts to provide you with answers, is only a means to the end of getting you to prove your own claims, or simply acknowledge that you are arguing for a subjective, imperfect, changeable, moral code based solely on your Reason and your perceived consensus.
The Bible frequently uses illustrations based in the world of agriculture. One of those seems appropriate here. In short, "You reap what you sow.". If you are going to sow equivocation, unproven claims, straw men, and all the rest don't be surprised when you reap unsatisfying responses. I'm sure it's hard for you to grasp that your actions will dictate how others react to you, but nonetheless that's reality.
The problem you seem to have is that my answers are too specific. I guess I've never found being direct and specific to be a fault.
Dan,
One final thought. My ultimate position on all of this is very simple. The existence of an objective, universal, ANYTHING, does not depend on your ability to perceive, understand, comprehend, Reason, or grasp it. The problem boils down to you placing ultimate faith in yourself and your Reason as the final authority to validate anything. Every response you've given comes back to you as the being that validates things. I don't trust you, your Reason, or anything else about your imperfect, fallen, selfish, fallible, human nature, as the arbiter of what is True or not. If you want to limit yourself, go right ahead.
Craig made more stupidly false claims, which are reasonably wrong, even if he's not wiling to take a stand even against child rape...
" One of those seems appropriate here. In short, "You reap what you sow.". If you are going to sow equivocation, unproven claims"
I've not equivocated. I've stated clear, demonstrable, observable reality. I've not made unproven claims. I've been clear that we CAN'T prove our moral opinions, so I can't have made unproven claims. I've stated REASONABLE claims, like raping children is wrong, even if we can't "prove" it. It is an abuse of human rights and obscene as hell. But Craig can't even take that stand, not objectively. NOR can he admit he can't prove it, even though his endless proof of his weak-kneed impotence to even TRY to "prove" what he hints at that he can prove.
What kind of sickly coward THINKS he has "proof" of his moral hunches but doesn't even TRY to prove them? The kind who is unable to take a stand against slavery or sexual abuse of children.
To try to make it easier for you: You don't even HAVE to provide objective proof of your moral/amoral hunches. You could POINT to some website who's done this before. I mean, Good Lord in heaven, if you conservative types ACTUALLY have demonstrable proof of your "moral code" (ie, amoral code), why wouldn't you spread it far and wide?! But look! Google "objective proof for moral code" and you get a big goose egg. NOTHING. Just like we see from Craig.
The closest we get are presumptions like Lewis' (People argue because they believe in an objective moral rightness to their position... But this is not a given. Why would they not argue if they think there is a REASONABLE case for their position, even if not objectively provable?) There is NOTHING ONLINE THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN that offers objective proof of a moral system.
Further, there is nothing (that I've seen) that even EXPLAINS what it means to have an "objective moral system..." Because... what? Those who read the Bible have an objectively provable moral code? No... that's not it. Because SOME who read the Bible have achieved an objectively moral code? No, that's not it... What do these Christians even MEAN when they vaguely hint that they have some objective proof? THAT question is never answered as a starting point.
Lord, have mercy.
And I am done, I'm just making some final clarifying points that you may have missed. That you have never even tried to LINK to some "proof" of some "objectively provable moral system" says it all.
Dan somehow thinks that if he repeats the same old drivel after promising me that he's done, while seasoning that drivel with vitriol, ad hom attacks, name calling, and some falsehoods, will somehow make everything he say True.
No, my answer to you, your choosing to ignore those answers, and your inability to prove yoru claims, says it all.
https://winteryknight.com/2022/11/06/christopher-hitchens-debates-william-lane-craig-does-god-exist-4/
Ultimately Dan's objection to a universal, objective moral code is that it can't be proven. He's also been pretty clear that he believes that the existence of YHWH can't be proven either. Since the existence of a moral lawgiver is necessary for the existence of a universal, objective moral law then obviously any attempt to "prove" a universal, objective moral law must start with proof of an entity with the ability to promulgate a universal, objective moral law.
In the above video two people who are significantly more well educated, and more intelligent than Dan debate the topic of the existence of YHWH. These sorts of debates seem like a good place for Dan to start.
Obviously, since Dan denies the existence of objective morality, the moral argument is going to be something he rejects without even listening to do. Fortunately, that still leaves plenty of material for Dan to digest and rebut.
Just to address yet another false claim from Craig...
"Dan denies the existence of objective morality, the moral argument is going to be something he rejects without even listening to do..."
1. I DO NOT DENY THE EXISTENCE OF OBJECTIVE MORALITY
2. Instead, I reject any claim FROM YOU that YOU have some claim to objectively provable morality. Nor do I or any human. To what do we appeal to prove morality?
3. I reject any claim that you have to some perfect proven system of morality precisely because none of you has presented objectivel proof. As a simple point of observable reality.
Indeed, you haven't even tried!
I believe that it is almost certainly immoral and a great evil to rape children, to have forced marriages, to enslave humans or to lie about stolen elections. But I can't objectively prove these. Nor can you. As seen by your not even TRYING to prove your morality.
Consider this: not only have you not ever objectively proven morality;
Not only have you not even TRIED to objectively prove morality;
I don't think you can even ARTICULATE what you mean by objectively prove morality.
What does that mean to you?
That you have some rubric, system or authoritative source that objectively proves the moral status of every potential action a person might take and with this system, all people can objectively know all moral answers?
Or does it mean you have a system to objectively know the moral status of SOME actions and that everyone can use this system to objectively know the right moral answer to SOME actions? If so, which ones and based on what?
Or are you saying this system can give SOME people SOME objectively provable moral questions?
What do you mean by this vague claim?
Please answer.
It boggles my mind that there are people claiming to have access to provable morality who won't step up and prove it!
To get to the question you mostly ignore - and to the point of this post and your criticism (moral judgment?) against my claim, I asked...
"Do YOU think you are incapable of making moral decisions apart from the Bible?"
And you responded...
I think that I am capable of making relatively moral decisions for myself, based on my self interest, experience, and filtered through my subjective opinions. I don't however think that those relatively moral decisions are binding or or applicable to others.
So, from your words, I'm gleaning that:
A. You DO think you can reach moral conclusions outside of biblical teachings, just like me.
B. But you don't think you have any reasonable way to say these out to apply for more than you.
And you have provided no hint of a notion of any "objective morality," outside of reason, so it appears that you are not even willing to clearly condemn raping children.
Do you see how pathetic and sad that is? How it lends support to evil?
Craig...
ince the existence of a moral lawgiver is necessary for the existence of a universal, objective moral law then obviously any attempt to "prove" a universal, objective moral law
PROVE that the existence of a "moral lawgiver is necessary for the existence of a universal objective moral law."
PROVE that there IS a "universal objective moral law."
EXPLAIN what you even mean by that rather vague and irrational-sounding claim. As a starting point.
Do you not see how your COMPLETE inability to even TRY explain what you mean undermines your vague hints of claims that maybe you believe?
Or maybe you're actually an amoral anarchist, as you also hint at, it's hard to tell because you won't make a simple declaration of what you believe.
1. You're right. You don't reject a universal, objective moral code outright. You simply won't accept in with out 100%, ironclad, proof that meets your subjective standards of proof. So, technically, you're right, functionally not so much.
2. Since I've never made such a claim, you're "rejecting" nothing.
3. Again, you're "rejecting" a claim that hasn't been made. The simple fact that you haven't quoted me making the claim demonstrates that you either know that this is bullshit, or you're too lazy to prove your self right.
"As seen by your not even TRYING to prove your morality."
Let's see, you won't "prove your morality". You won't prove multiple claims you've made". You won't acknowledge that your moral code is subjective and can only be applied to others by imposing a majority consensus on a minority. You won't acknowledge that your moral code is changeable over time.
But, you're focused on me proving a claim I haven't made.
Craig...
"you're focused on me proving a claim I haven't made."
I'm asking for you to make your positions clear:
DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE MORAL SYSTEM?
IF SO, WHAT IS IT?
IF NOT, ARE YOU SAYING YOU CAN'T AND WON'T CONDEMN CHILD RAPE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S OBJECTIVELY WRONG?
These are reasonable questions, especially given your constant attacks on moral reasoning applied beyond the individual.
"What does that mean to you?"
It means that I have no reason to prove a claim that I haven't made. It means that I have no desire to go down this rabbit hole again. It means that you will continue to ignore anything that doesn't meet your subjective standard of proof. It means that I'm not going to humor you in your quest to move the topic from your inability to prove your claims, to me proving a claim I haven't made.
"Or does it mean you have a system to objectively know the moral status of SOME actions and that everyone can use this system to objectively know the right moral answer to SOME actions? If so, which ones and based on what?"
When you ask a question like this, without any reference to what you are allegedly trying to understand (like a direct quote), the question is kind of pointless. But, no.
"Or are you saying this system can give SOME people SOME objectively provable moral questions?"
No.
"What do you mean by this vague claim?"
I don't know what claim you are talking about. Since I haven't made any claims that I'm aware of, I can only say that I mean nothing by a claim I didn't make.
Please answer.
"It boggles my mind that there are people claiming to have access to provable morality who won't step up and prove it!"
It boggles my mind that we live in an age when we have unlimited access to virtually every bit of information on the planet and you actually think that absolutely zero Christian theologians/scholars/philosophers have addressed this. The problem doesn't seem to be me, it seems to be your unwillingness to seek out what is available. Do you understand how ludicrous it is to claim that absolutely ZERO people have ever addressed this topic?
A. Not "just like you", but in a similar manner. The difference is that I'm not trying to insist that those subjective moral conclusions are binding on anyone but myself.
B. Yes, I am not claiming to have the ability to reach subjective, personal conclusions regarding what I believe to be moral and to unilaterally apply those conclusions to others.
"And you have provided no hint of a notion of any "objective morality," outside of reason, so it appears that you are not even willing to clearly condemn raping children."
You are correct. I have never made any claim on this subject, therefore I have never provided any proof of a claim that I have not made.
"Do you see how pathetic and sad that is? How it lends support to evil?"
No, no.
"PROVE that the existence of a "moral lawgiver is necessary for the existence of a universal objective moral law."
It is impossible to have an effect without a cause. It is impossible for nothing to beget something. It is impossible for the subjective to beget anything objective. Why are you so opposed to the notion of a being that with the authority to give a universal, objective moral law? I'd give you more videos to watch, but that would be a waste of my time.
"PROVE that there IS a "universal objective moral law."
Prove every claim you've made in this thread, and I'll think about it. I'm not doing what you won't do.
"EXPLAIN what you even mean by that rather vague and irrational-sounding claim. As a starting point."
Again, not sure what claim you're talking about. But I'll try this. A universal, objective, moral law is an effect. An effect requires a cause. The cause must be sufficient to bring about the desired effect.
Now, prove that your subjective moral code can be grounded in anything external to yourself. Prove that a consensus on what is moral is sufficient to apply that moral code on others.
"Do you not see how your COMPLETE inability to even TRY explain what you mean undermines your vague hints of claims that maybe you believe?"
No, I do not see that focusing on your unproven claims before I make any claims is anything but rational. I do not see how enabling your attempts to avoid proving your claims, by trying to insinuate that I've made claims, is a smart strategy.
"Or maybe you're actually an amoral anarchist, as you also hint at, it's hard to tell because you won't make a simple declaration of what you believe."
Or maybe you just need to keep making shit up, throwing it at the wall, and hoping some of your made up shit sticks because you can't prove your own claims.
If this is what you mean when you say you're going to run away, then I guess lying is acceptable in your subjective moral code.
Craig...
A universal, objective, moral law is an effect. An effect requires a cause. The cause must be sufficient to bring about the desired effect.
A. WHO SAYS there is a universal, objective, moral law?
Where is the PROOF of that claim?
Are YOU saying there is a universal, objective moral law?
B. WHO SAYS a universal, objective, moral law (IF such exists, a point you've not proven) is an "effect"...?
What does that mean, that it is an "effect..."?
You're starting with presumptions you've not proven.
+++++++
Are you willing to condemn unequivocally the rape of children?
If so, are you able to objectively prove that it's wrong?
+++++++
Craig...
Or maybe you just need to keep making shit up, throwing it at the wall
You have not been clear about what you believe. I'm not making shit up. I'm asking reasonable questions:
DO YOU BELIEVE YOU HOLD AN OBJECTIVE MORAL SYSTEM?
IF SO, WHAT IS IT?
ARE YOU A MORAL ANARCHIST, NOT BELIEVING THAT WE HAVE ANY REASON TO OPPOSE ANY ACTION, EVEN CHILD RAPE?
Those are just questions, not accusations. (Hint: Look at the question marks.)
Craig...
we have unlimited access to virtually every bit of information on the planet and you actually think that absolutely zero Christian theologians/scholars/philosophers have addressed this.
WHERE? I've looked. I've not found even a HINT of anything like a subjective proof of morality. ANYWHERE. Now, I am a finite human and it's possible I haven't found it just because of my finite nature. But IF YOU KNOW of some objective proof of some moral system, WHY NOT just point to it?
This is such a childish, irrational way to communicate, Craig. Do you not realize that?
"I have an objective moral system that I can prove... maybe."
? Do you or don't you?
"You're bad because you want to impose your subjective moral opinions on others."
? We do that all the time as humanity. It's called civilization and I'd argue it's a good thing at least at the level of preventing harm and oppression!
"Well, maybe an objectively moral system would be better."
Of course it would. DO YOU HAVE that? Where is it?
"I never said I had an objective moral system."
?? So, you DON'T have an objectively provable moral system...?!
"That's not what I said! Why do you make things up?"
???! DO YOU OR DON'T YOU HAVE AN OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE MORAL SYSTEM OR KNOW WHERE ONE EXISTS?
"The internet is so full of information like this. You're bad for not just finding it."
??!! WHERE? WHERE DOES THIS "objectively provable moral system" live? WHO has it? I can't find it. If you have access to it, I'd love to see it, even if I was wrong about some moral ideas, I want to know the answer and would LOVE it if you have it.
[crickets]
Craig...
Prove every claim you've made in this thread, and I'll think about it. I'm not doing what you won't do.
I've proven all the objective fact claims I've made. I can't - no one can - prove unprovable claims like "We have an obligation to use our moral reasoning to take a stand against harmful injustice, even if we can't objectively prove our point."
I stand entirely opposed to child rape and I can't "prove" that it's wrong objectively, but it clearly is and anyone with moral reasoning capability can understand how it is a violation of a basic human right, which human rights are self-evident.
You do not appear to have ANY way of objectively proving child rape is wrong. Are you not willing to take a stand against it? If not, shame on you. You're part of the problem.
"A. WHO SAYS there is a universal, objective, moral law?"
No one. But, if such a thing exists, then there are certain things we can determine.
"Where is the PROOF of that claim?"
At this point, I'm speaking hypothetically.
"Are YOU saying there is a universal, objective moral law?"
No.
"B. WHO SAYS a universal, objective, moral law (IF such exists, a point you've not proven) is an "effect"...?"
Well, speaking of stupid questions, here goes. Unless this moral law simply sprang into existence, the only other option is that it is an effect.
"What does that mean, that it is an "effect..."?"
Anything that is not a cause, is an effect.
"You're starting with presumptions you've not proven."
The fact that you think I need to prove cause and effect, tells me that you are more committed to asking questions as a way to divert attention from your unproven claims than in getting answers.
+++++++
"Are you willing to condemn unequivocally the rape of children?"
Yes, I personally of of the opinion that raping children is bad.
"If so, are you able to objectively prove that it's wrong?"
No, I'm not and neither are you.
+++++++
Craig...
Or maybe you just need to keep making shit up, throwing it at the wall
"You have not been clear about what you believe. I'm not making shit up. I'm asking reasonable questions:"
I haven't because I'm trying to get you to prove your claims, and provide details about your moral code. But we've clearly abandoned that in favor of you simply repeating yourself.
"DO YOU BELIEVE YOU HOLD AN OBJECTIVE MORAL SYSTEM?"
No.
"IF SO, WHAT IS IT?"
I said I don't.
"ARE YOU A MORAL ANARCHIST, NOT BELIEVING THAT WE HAVE ANY REASON TO OPPOSE ANY ACTION, EVEN CHILD RAPE?"
No.
Dan,
If you're just going to construct conversations all by yourself, with you playing both parts, why would I bother to do what I just did?
FYI, your default position that everyone else is always wrong, makes you sound a little paranoid or something.
I see absolutely no reason to waste any more time if all Dan is going to do is repeat the same crap, make shit up, and try to put words in my mouth. Especially since he's announced with great fanfare that he's done.
Dan, "I'm done here. I'm not going to comment any more because you won't prove that claims that I made up and attributed to you. If you are not going to enable my attempts to engage in a straw man fallacy, then I'm not going to grace this blog with my presence."
Also Dan, 'But wait, let me repeat myself for multiple additional comments."
Craig, "Dan, why not start with proving your claims?"
Dan, "I've proven my claims, because I've said that they're self evident, don't you know that saying those magic words means that my claims are proven? And OH, here are some more comments where I repeat myself, make up multiple bullshit fake quotes, and repeat the some old blather. But, really, I'm done."
The above is sarcasm, not an attempt at actually quoting Dan.
Okay, given what SEEMS like clear answers from you, let me try this.
What's been said, me in bold:
"DO YOU BELIEVE YOU HOLD AN OBJECTIVE MORAL SYSTEM?"
No.
"ARE YOU A MORAL ANARCHIST, NOT BELIEVING THAT WE HAVE ANY REASON TO OPPOSE ANY ACTION, EVEN CHILD RAPE?"
No.
++++++
Okay, given what seems like clear answers from you:
You have ABSOLUTELY NO objectively moral system you rely upon, AND YET, you think you DO have a reason to condemn child rape.
On what basis, then, do you condemn child rape, if not an objective moral system?
"On what basis, then, do you condemn child rape, if not an objective moral system?"
I personally condemn it in several bases, but I think one will suffice.
1. YHWH commands us to love others as we love our selves.
It's absolutely hilarious to watch you try to make it appear as if "No" is somehow now a clear, direct, answer.
For someone who was "done", you sure keep commenting.
Craig... "For someone who was "done", you sure keep commenting."
I know I should stop but I really would like direct answers and every time you mention something, I think to myself: "Maybe if I ask him THIS way, he'll answer directly and in a way that I can understand."
For instance, although you APPEAR to be saying you can't prove it objectively (am I right? It is SO hard to say because you don't answer directly... or you DO answer what seems to be directly but then when I cite what you've said, you say, "NO, I didn't say that!"), but that you WOULD condemn child rape because the Bible says to love others as we love ourselves..."
So, you WOULD condemn it, even though you can't prove it objectively, which is what I've been saying I do, as well?
I ask because you APPEAR to be criticizing me for condemning actions by others which I can't prove objectively. Am I understanding THAT correctly? That you think I'm wrong to condemn child rape in others even though I can't prove it objectively?
If so, what's the difference between you condemning it in others when you can't prove it and ME condemning it in others when I can't prove it?
At least in my case, I'm making an appeal to something larger (philosophically speaking) than any one religion's ideas. That is, in your case, you are appealing specifically to your "YHWH" which non-YHWH believers may not give a damn about.
But my appealing to human rights and the universal notion of doing no harm to innocents and doing unto others what you'd have them do to you (not because it's from God, but because it's reasonable) would potentially reach more of the world than an appeal to one specific religious tradition's thoughts about their deity.
Do you think this is somehow wrong and if so, what do you offer in its place? That others should behave because you're telling them you think your god disapproves of it, even though you can't objectively prove it?
Or, to put it back to my question and your response (not quite an answer)
Dan:
On what basis, then, do you condemn child rape, if not an objective moral system?
Craig:
I personally condemn it in several bases, but I think one will suffice.
1. YHWH commands us to love others as we love our selves.
So, your SUBJECTIVE and unprovable opinion about what you and your religious tradition believes, THAT is why you would denounce child rape in others.
Do I understand you correctly?
I DO SO MUCH want to understand you correctly. Help me.
"So, you WOULD condemn it, even though you can't prove it objectively, which is what I've been saying I do, as well?"
Yes, I would personally condemn something that I personally found to be behavior that I believe to be immoral.
"I ask because you APPEAR to be criticizing me for condemning actions by others which I can't prove objectively. Am I understanding THAT correctly?"
No.
"That you think I'm wrong to condemn child rape in others even though I can't prove it objectively?"
No.
"If so, what's the difference between you condemning it in others when you can't prove it and ME condemning it in others when I can't prove it?"
It's that I'm not labeling something or someone objectively moral or immoral.
"At least in my case, I'm making an appeal to something larger (philosophically speaking) than any one religion's ideas. That is, in your case, you are appealing specifically to your "YHWH" which non-YHWH believers may not give a damn about."
Yes, you are appealing to some supposed/unproven consensus of a majority in order to impose your subjective moral code on others.
"But my appealing to human rights and the universal notion of doing no harm to innocents and doing unto others what you'd have them do to you (not because it's from God, but because it's reasonable) would potentially reach more of the world than an appeal to one specific religious tradition's thoughts about their deity."
So.
"Do you think this is somehow wrong and if so, what do you offer in its place?"
Not necessarily, and nothing.
"That others should behave because you're telling them you think your god disapproves of it, even though you can't objectively prove it?"
No.
Dan:
On what basis, then, do you condemn child rape, if not an objective moral system?
Craig:
I personally condemn it in several bases, but I think one will suffice.
1. YHWH commands us to love others as we love our selves.
"So, your SUBJECTIVE and unprovable opinion about what you and your religious tradition believes, THAT is why you would denounce child rape in others."
That would be one reason, yes. Of course I recognize that doing so is subjective and that I'd have no basis to make objective determinations based on my subjective conclusions.
"Do I understand you correctly?"
Not really, but I've given up caring if you do or not.
"I DO SO MUCH want to understand you correctly. Help me."
I find that hard to believe, as you consistently mis represent what I've said and make shit up and attribute it to me.
Dan...
"I ask because you APPEAR to be criticizing me for condemning actions by others which I can't prove objectively. Am I understanding THAT correctly?"
Craig...
No.
Also Craig, talking to Dan:
I'm saying that your ability to make "reasonably moral" decisions based on your individual, personal, subjective moral code, doesn't ground you to make objective claims about the morality of others.
If you were to say: "According to my personal, subjective, moral code, I hold the opinion that X is wrong for me (and I wouldn't do X), and I suspect that others probably shouldn't do X either. Here is why I think so...", then there would be no problem.
The problem is that you say: "Mr X is immoral.", you apply your subjective moral code in an objective way.
So, in THAT message, you appear to be suggesting that the notion of applying a REASONABLE but objectively unprovable moral position that OTHERS should heed is "a problem." But then, you are saying that you, too, would apply your subjective moral opinion on others, as well. So, is it a problem or not?
Craig...
Of course I recognize that doing so is subjective and that I'd have no basis to make objective determinations based on my subjective conclusions.
We've established that you're not able to objective prove your moral ideas. No one is. So that's a moot point.
The question is, EVEN IF you can't objectively prove that child rape is wrong beyond what you traditions may or may not think, will you condemn it when other people do it as being "clearly" wrong or "reasonably" wrong and, indeed, a great evil?
You appear to agree with me that you would take a stand against someone else engaging in child rape, even if they didn't agree with you, even if it was legal. Good. So, what's the problem?
What am I NOT understanding?
You gave your reason to oppose child rape as...
1. YHWH commands us to love others as we love our selves.
I replied, asking...
So, your SUBJECTIVE and unprovable opinion about what you and your religious tradition believes, THAT is why you would denounce child rape in others.
Do I understand you correctly?
You reply,
Not really.
What am I not understanding? I took YOUR QUOTED reason for opposing child rape (the Golden Rule) and tried to confirm that in other words (that is, framed a bit further, "the Golden Rule -your subjective and unprovable opinion about what your religion believes, THAT is why you'd oppose child rape?") and you're telling me No.
What am I missing?
Craig...
I find that hard to believe, as you consistently mis represent what I've said and make shit up and attribute it to me.
Asking questions and seeking clarity is not making up shit. When you give the vague and sometimes contradictory-sounding answers you give (CONSTANTLY criticizing me for acknowledging we can't prove our moral opinions objectively AND YET, you appear to acknowledge the same AND YET, I don't know that for sure because your answers are so vague and contradictory... for one example), it can be hard to understand.
WHY in the world would I stick with you so long and ask so many questions in the face of your constant rebukes and demonizations if I wasn't actually trying to understand your actual positions?
Here's a little factoid: I have never not one time in all of history deliberately misrepresented your position. Never happened. I HAVE asked questions and repeated back what I thought you had said in a sincere effort to repeat back what I was hearing you say, but never have I deliberately misrepresented you. Just for the record.
I am an imperfect man with imperfect understanding, but why in the name of all that is holy would I deliberately misrepresent your views? To what end? I don't have time for all of that.
Craig...
you are appealing to some supposed/unproven consensus of a majority in order to impose your subjective moral code on others.
See, when you say things like this, it SOUNDS like you're criticizing appealing to moral reason, even though you don't have another provable alternative.
ARE you criticizing appeals to moral reason? If not, why frame it as "me" "imposing it" on others? I'm 100% NOT saying, "You know what, I PERSONALLY think that eating vanilla ice cream with peanut butter is EVIL and should be penalized by death!" That is, I'm NOT appealing to some odd and unique-to-me notion. I'm saying that the vast majority of humanity recognizes that child rape is wrong. It is a violation of human liberty and self determination. It is a violation of universally accepted notions of "do unto others." It causes real harm to real children. I can list all the RATIONAL ways that it is a great evil, EVEN IF no one can objectively prove that point in any authoritative manner.
Why would we NOT seek to "impose" a universal moral objection to child rape? Because we can't prove it objectively? Or, if you agree that this is NOT just a personal whim, but a widely recognized great evil, why do you frame it in such a dismissive manner ("appealing to some SUPPOSED/UNPROVEN consensus in order to IMPOSE YOUR SUBJECTIVE moral code on others...")? Do you recognize the multiple words in all that sentence that makes it sound like you're condemning the notion of moral reasoning?
Again, what is the alternative?
Nothing, right?
"Asking questions and seeking clarity is not making up shit."
No, but making up shit is making up shit. The fact that you ignore where I've pointed this out, it's not my problem.
It's not my responsibility to make sure you understand.
I have no idea why, but I suspect it's to take attention away from your unproven claims, unanswered questions, vagueness, lack of detail, and unsupported assumptions.
Yes, you are.
"So, in THAT message, you appear to be suggesting that the notion of applying a REASONABLE but objectively unprovable moral position that OTHERS should heed is "a problem." But then, you are saying that you, too, would apply your subjective moral opinion on others, as well."
No, I'm not.
"So, is it a problem or not?"
Yes, applying a subjective moral code in an objective way is a problem.
"The question is, EVEN IF you can't objectively prove that child rape is wrong beyond what you traditions may or may not think, will you condemn it when other people do it as being "clearly" wrong or "reasonably" wrong and, indeed, a great evil?"
It's amazing how often you assert that something is "THE QUESTION", then promptly assert that something else is "THE QUESTION".
I would never make an objective claim, based on a subjective conclusion.
"You appear to agree with me that you would take a stand against someone else engaging in child rape, even if they didn't agree with you, even if it was legal. Good. So, what's the problem?"
I don't have a problem. I would never make an objective claim based on a subjective conclusion.
"What am I NOT understanding?"
A subjective conclusion doesn't give you the basis to make an objective claim. But I've said this multiple times, and multiple ways. So you can either demonstrate how a subjective conclusion can ground an objective claim, or stay true to your word.
"See, when you say things like this, it SOUNDS like you're criticizing appealing to moral reason, even though you don't have another provable alternative."
See, when you start with telling me how somethings SOUNDS to you, I automatically assume that you're wrong.
"ARE you criticizing appeals to moral reason?"
No.
"If not, why frame it as "me" "imposing it" on others?"
Because, in this context, you are the one making objective claims without providing an objective basis for those claims. I'm simply expecting that you support your claims, or modify them to indicate that they're subjective.
"I'm 100% NOT saying, "You know what, I PERSONALLY think that eating vanilla ice cream with peanut butter is EVIL and should be penalized by death!" That is, I'm NOT appealing to some odd and unique-to-me notion. I'm saying that the vast majority of humanity recognizes that child rape is wrong. It is a violation of human liberty and self determination. It is a violation of universally accepted notions of "do unto others." It causes real harm to real children. I can list all the RATIONAL ways that it is a great evil, EVEN IF no one can objectively prove that point in any authoritative manner."
Yes, you can appeal to all sorts of subjective metrics, and appeal to an (unproven) majority. But none of that gets you to grounding for an objective claim.
"Why would we NOT seek to "impose" a universal moral objection to child rape?"
As long as you can acknowledge the subjective nature of this imposition, and avoid making objective claims about it, then nothing. Especially if you're willing to use enough coercion. In most contexts we would call this law, not morality. You're imposing a subjective standard of behavior, based on a majority consensus, as what is legal or not. This allows those who don't agree with your subjective stance on child rape to be punished for breaking the law regardless of the subjective nature of the morality.
"Because we can't prove it objectively?"
Yes.
"Or, if you agree that this is NOT just a personal whim, but a widely recognized great evil, why do you frame it in such a dismissive manner ("appealing to some SUPPOSED/UNPROVEN consensus in order to IMPOSE YOUR SUBJECTIVE moral code on others...")?"
Because you haven't actually provided any proof that your assumption about the consensus is actually True. You'd need to demonstrate that 50.1% of the world population agreed with you and you haven't done so. I'm not saying that it's an unreasonable assumption, just that (without proof) it is an assumption. Of course, your inability to ground something objective and something subjective, is still a problem.
"Do you recognize the multiple words in all that sentence that makes it sound like you're condemning the notion of moral reasoning?"
Again, I don't care how things sound to you. I'm not interested in modifying anything just so you think it sounds appropriate. It's almost like you think you are the arbiter of what "SOUNDS" appropriate or something.
"Again, what is the alternative?"
Since I've not made any claims about an alternative, I have no obligation to provide an alternative just because I'm pointing out the flaws in your moral code.
"Nothing, right?"
Right, I've made no claims and have no reason to provide anything.
Craig...
I don't have a problem. I would never make an objective claim based on a subjective conclusion.
So, you would NOT condemn a child rapist?? You would NOT call that act a great evil?
I thought you just said you WOULD condemn it..? Here is our exchange...
Dan:
On what basis, then, do you condemn child rape, if not an objective moral system?
Craig:
I personally condemn it in several bases, but I think one will suffice..
You said you condemn child rape, when you can't objectively prove it, then say that you "would never make an objective claim based on a subjective conclusion."
Which is it?
Sorry, that was me, Dan.
Dan...
"What am I NOT understanding?"
Craig...
"A subjective conclusion doesn't give you the basis to make an objective claim."
But I've been clear that I'm not making an objective claim, I'm making a reasonable claim... that child rape is evil. Don't you agree that this is a morally reasonable claim??
Craig...
Because, in this context, you are the one making objective claims without providing an objective basis for those claims.
I'm not making an objective claim. That's a clear damned lie you're making, as a point of fact.
Do you recognize THAT objective claim?
I'm saying it is REASONABLY moral to denounce raping children. NOT objectively provable. Reasonably moral.
Craig...
just because I'm pointing out the flaws in your moral code.
What flaw? The reality that none of can objectively prove our moral opinions?
But then, that would be the reality for you, as well. So why not say this is a flaw in OUR moral codes?
"What flaw? The reality that none of can objectively prove our moral opinions?"
No. More that you want to make objective judgements about people or actions, while only having a subjective moral code.
"But then, that would be the reality for you, as well. So why not say this is a flaw in OUR moral codes?"
No, because I'm not trying to make objective judgements based on a subjective moral code.
"So, you would NOT condemn a child rapist?? You would NOT call that act a great evil?"
That's not what I said, please read closely and pay attention.
"I thought you just said you WOULD condemn it..?"
I believe I said that I would personally condemn it.
"Which is it?"
both.
"But I've been clear that I'm not making an objective claim, I'm making a reasonable claim... that child rape is evil. Don't you agree that this is a morally reasonable claim??"
That's not the claim that started this digression.
"Do you recognize THAT objective claim?"
The problem is that your "child rape" example isn't the claim that got this digression started. It's a relatively recent claim that is intended to be so extreme as to force others to agree with you. It's also not an objective claim, as was the claim that started this digression.
Do you need an new dead horse? This one must be getting extremely beaten.
I get it, I agree that you DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE to form a subjective moral code.
But please keep searching for disagreement where none exists.
Craig...
I agree that you DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE to form a subjective moral code.
If THAT is what you think I'm saying, you're still missing the point (and hence, there is no dead horse being beaten... I'm STILL trying to get you to understand the points I'm making.
I'm not saying that I, Dan Trabue, do not need the Bible to make moral decisions (not "form a subjective moral code"). I'm saying that NONE OF US DO. YOU, Craig, do not need the Bible to make moral decisions and if you'd just answer questions directly, you would see that.
The Bible doesn't condemn slavery or forced marriages. AND YET, you, Craig, can recognize how very evil forced marriages and slavery are (I hope this is the case), EVEN THOUGH the Bible doesn't condemn them.
And if YOU "need" the Bible to form YOUR subjective hunches about morality (and somehow that doesn't leave room for condemning forced marriages or slavery!!), nonetheless, the rest of us don't. We make moral reckonings every day and some of us do it entirely without the Bible. We humans make moral decisions every day - individually AND COLLECTIVELY - by using our God-given moral reason inside ourselves.
We may not be able to PERFECTLY know all moral answers with this moral reasoning, but NEITHER do those who "rely on the Bible" (or so some may say) know all moral answers with "the Bible" to "tell them" what to think about moral questions.
And NOT ONLY can we make moral decisions for ourselves, at least on some level, we can make reasonable moral decisions that would cause us to stand AGAINST OTHERS boldly and strongly denouncing behaviors like rape, genocide, racism and oppression.
Again, that we can't "know perfectly and objectively" does not mean we can't form REASONABLE moral decisions and take REASONABLE moral positions against those who'd cause harm.
THAT is my point on that topic, not that I can form opinions for myself and myself ONLY.
And my further point is - excluding the recognition of human rights as self-evident - NONE of us, including especially you and conservative Christians - have an objectively provable moral code. You just don't. A point I believe you agree with but it's hard to say because you are so vague and milquetoast and obtuse about what it is you do and don't believe.
I think the problem is that you think in your head that, "really, it's true... I DO hold an objective moral code, provable and authoritative... it's just that I can't prove it... but I CAN, if only people will agree to some preceding hunches... or something." In other words, I think you hate to admit that you can't prove your "moral code" objectively and it hurts your feelings so you keep hedging your bets.
I suspect if we get right down to it, you believe something like "The Holy Spirit affirms in MY spirit that I got it right, so THAT'S how I 'know,' but I can't say that out loud because it is the ultimate in subjective claims..."
But who knows? You remain, as always, vague and wishy washy.
Craig...
The problem is that your "child rape" example isn't the claim that got this digression started. It's a relatively recent claim that is intended to be so extreme as to force others to agree with you.
What claim is it that you think "got this digression started?" That WE don't need the Bible to form reasonable moral decisions? That remains a valid point and I'm not at all sure what it is you think is wrong with "that digression" or how acknowledging that observable reality IS a "digression."
The example of child rape is a useful example, though. Because it's so easily recognized as a great and hideous evil that we can recognize whether we believe the Bible or not, whether we HAVE the Bible or not, that it goes to show the notion that moral reckoning is something innate in humanity. Why do you kick against that goad?
DO YOU ONLY "PERSONALLY CONDEMN" CHILD RAPE, meaning you only condemn it if YOU PERSONALLY do it?
OR, WILL YOU CONDEMN CHILD RAPE WHENEVER AND WHERE IT HAPPENS, NOT JUST AS WRONG, BUT AS A GREAT AND HIDEOUS EVIL?
Why do you play games with such simple and serious questions? Why not just be clear?
Speaking of being clear, I had asked...
"So, you would NOT condemn a child rapist?? You would NOT call that act a great evil?"
And you responded...
That's not what I said, please read closely and pay attention.
I AM paying attention and you ARE being vague and obtuse and so I reasonably ask for clarification. When you say you "personally" condemn child rape, what in the name of all that is good and decent do you mean by that? That you only condemn YOURSELF when you rape children? OR, will you join humanity in condemning it ANY TIME it happens and do so because it's CLEARLY wrong, even though you can't prove it objectively?
Be clear, son.
"What claim is it that you think "got this digression started?"
Oh, now I have to spoon feed your own words back to you, because you're too lazy to do your own research. Nah, I think I'll pass on that, you do your own research.
"That WE don't need the Bible to form reasonable moral decisions? That remains a valid point and I'm not at all sure what it is you think is wrong with "that digression" or how acknowledging that observable reality IS a "digression.""
No, that's not the claim. You could have figured that out because it's a subjective claim, and it's an example of you claiming to speak for others, instead of simply speaking for your self.
"The example of child rape is a useful example, though. Because it's so easily recognized as a great and hideous evil that we can recognize whether we believe the Bible or not, whether we HAVE the Bible or not, that it goes to show the notion that moral reckoning is something innate in humanity. Why do you kick against that goad?"
It's useful to you, not to anyone else. No goad kicking here.
"DO YOU ONLY "PERSONALLY CONDEMN" CHILD RAPE, meaning you only condemn it if YOU PERSONALLY do it?"
No.
"OR, WILL YOU CONDEMN CHILD RAPE WHENEVER AND WHERE IT HAPPENS, NOT JUST AS WRONG, BUT AS A GREAT AND HIDEOUS EVIL?"
Asked and answered.
"Why do you play games with such simple and serious questions? Why not just be clear?"
no games, I've been clear. I know you can't conceive of this, but maybe you're failure to understand is your problem, not mine.
Speaking of being clear, I had asked...
"So, you would NOT condemn a child rapist?? You would NOT call that act a great evil?"
"That's not what I said, please read closely and pay attention."
That seems simple, clear, and direct.
"I AM paying attention and you ARE being vague and obtuse and so I reasonably ask for clarification."
I'm sorry that you have trouble with simple, clear, direct, answers. Maybe it's your problem.
"When you say you "personally" condemn child rape, what in the name of all that is good and decent do you mean by that?"
I mean that I personally condemn child rape. Do those words have too many syllables? Are there too many words? Is the concept confusing?
"That you only condemn YOURSELF when you rape children?"
No.
"OR, will you join humanity in condemning it ANY TIME it happens and do so because it's CLEARLY wrong, even though you can't prove it objectively?"
I'll simply speak for myself, instead if trying to speak for others. But, I would agree with others who condemn this based on their subjective moral code.
'Be clear, son."
Given your refusal to prove your claims, support your assumptions, answer questions, and explain your hunches, this is really funny.
FYI, you don't speak for me, so please stop.
What objective fact claim have I made that I haven't proven?
I'm willing to guess you can't point to any.
What assumptions have I made that I haven't supported?
What questions have I not answered?
What hunches have I failed to explain?
I can point to the MANY questions you've not been clear on easily enough. If you can't be specific, I don't know how to help you other than tell you that your vague milquetoast half questions and half non-answers don't help you in the field of communication.
For instance, where you say...
I would agree with others who condemn this based on their subjective moral code.
Do you mean that you will agree with OTHERS who condemn child rape based on their moral reasoning (subjective, though it may be), knowing that YOU, TOO, have a subjective moral reason for opposing it "personally..."?
So, recognizing that neither they NOR YOU have an objectively provable moral code to oppose child rape, you STILL agree with them that it's important to oppose it because IT IS REASONABLE to do so... is that right?
You DO acknowledge that your moral system is 100% unprovable and subjective, right?
Because every time you note that people are opposing child rape for "subjective reasons," it makes it sound like you think you have a better alternative. But you don't, right?
If claims like this trouble you...
I'm saying that NONE OF US DO. YOU, Craig, do not need the Bible to make moral decisions and if you'd just answer questions directly, you would see that.
...because you think in your head that I haven't supported it, you're missing it, then. The support is that in the real world, every day, people DO make moral choices using their reason, not needing a bible to do so. It's observable.
If YOU think that all these people deciding to be kind, loving and helpful to their parents or children or strangers or even their enemies - APART from the Bible - are NOT actually being kind and loving, then it would be up to you to provide support for that rather unbelievable claim. For me, the reality that it actually happens every day is all the data I need.
Dan,
You keep telling me what I "do not need", what gives you the authority to decide things for me? What gives you the authority to make decisions for everyone in the entire world?
Of course, I've already said virtually every thing in your last comment, but you just can't stop yourself?
YOU DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO MAKE MORAL DECISIONS. NO ONE DOES.
Now, you may want to rely upon your interpretations of what the Bible does and doesn't say, but as a point of fact, YOU DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO MAKE MORAL DECISIONS.
People do it all the time.
I don't know what part of this reality you are failing to understand?
Did you not know that people make moral decisions every single day without the Bible?
They do. I've seen them. I've done it. The Bible even CALLS for it. You can, too. Now, whether you CHOOSE to make moral decisions apart from casting bones or reading tea leaves or reading the Bible and using your reasoning to think about what it means, that's up to you. But you observably do not NEED it to make moral decisions.
I'm not making up your mind/making decisions for you or ANYONE else, I'm just talking about observable reality.
YOU, on the other hand, do NOT get to determine reality. It just is.
Excellent. Who knew you would double down on telling me what to do. No thanks.
Interesting that someone who consistently tries to define what reality is, is going to tell me that I don't get to do what he regularly does.
Post a Comment