"Please define, specifically and objectively, these “basic moral lines”, and explain what authority undergirds them."
The above is a simple direct question that I asked Dan to answer. Please note the terms "specifically" and "objectively" as you consider his response.
DO NOT HARM OTHERS AGAINST THEIR WILL. This is one of the basic moral outlines that is so obvious as to be nearly universal. Of course, there are rules that have changed over the millennia. It used to be acceptable to enslave others or to deny rights to others, but we have progressed, thankfully.
Let's start with the obvious. It states relatively clearly that their are "basic moral outlines" that are nearly universal, then he argues that these "nearly universal" moral lines changed to allow slavery and denial of rights to be moral. This ignores the very basic fact that there are currently more people enslaved than at any time in human history. That various people groups consider killing homosexuals so moral that they've incorporated it into their law. The problem with this vague ethic is that it is at odds with definitions of morality. "Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal."
In other words, if morality is defined by the "philosophy, religion, or culture", then there is no basis for a morality that transcends "philosophy, religion, or culture". Clearly, as we sit here in 2020 there are philosophies, religions, and culture that consider things like slavery to be moral. Further, science tells us that we are "computers made of meat.", that life has no meaning beyond propagation of ones genes, that altruism has no scientific basis. Given that, how does one ground the above ethic in something specific, objective, transcendent, and authoritative?
What authority undergirds the notion not to harm others against their will? Just basic common sense? Basic decency? Basic recognition of universal human rights?
The three questions above, are based on the assumptions that 1) "common sense" is an objective universal standard, 2) that there is an objective basis for "universal human rights". Essentially it's an assertion of an objective, universal, standard without actually defining the standard or explaining what authority grounds that "universal" standard. It's simply asserting a moral standard that should be followed and accepted simply "because">
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that ALL HUMANS are created equal,
Ok, this is as close as the entire response comes to offering something to under gird the original claims. But let's dig deeper.
"We"- Who is "We"? Is it the authors? The founders? The signers? King George? Louis XVI? Abdul Hamid? Is this a universal statement? I'd argue that if George III believed this then there would have been no need for the document being quoted.
"hold"- Does "hold" mean proven? Is this a claim of objectivity?
"truths"- Again, is this a claim of universal objective truth? If so, then asking for proof might be in order.
"to be self-evident"- Yet, the entirety of the rest of human civilization at the time didn't find these things to be either true or self evident.
"that all men (I see your attempt to reword this to your benefit) are created equal"- I'll just point out that the society/nation that followed this document didn't actually treat "ALL HUMANS" equally.
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
Now this gets interesting. It's clear that these "unalienable" rights are endowed. That these rights are universal and transcendent. Yet, even in the government the writers formed they chose to deny some people these "unalienable" rights. Again, clearly the writers (in practice) denied the very unalienable rights thay claimed were true.
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Yet we live in a country where the right to life is regularly denied to some of "ALL HUMANS". The very writers of these words denied liberty to some of "ALL HUMANS".
What's amazing in all of this is that in his attempt to demonstrate a "universal", "objective", "specific" foundation for "morality" (It's probably a good time to note that Dan has stopped trying to prove "morality"), Dan has provide a stanza from a document that didn't even fully apply to every "HUMAN" in the 13 colonies when it was written. In fact these notions were so far from "self evident" in the 1770's that the very notion led to a prolonged and savage war because the George III was offended by the notion that his subjects had rights not granted by the crown. The reality is that IF the "morality" allegedly under girded by was really "self evident", how different human history would have been.
Do you disagree with the notion that these truths are self-evident, or do you agree?
I'm not sure what me agreeing has to do with you demonstrating the universal "basic moral lines". i was hoping that you would have actually proven the existence of what you claimed exists, as opposed to this incomplete attempt to co opt the US Declaration of Independence to support an alleged "basic moral lines" that apparently don't pre date the Declaration of Independence. Especially since you've cited a formulation that the signers didn't even fully embrace.
Can we PROVE that there is a God? No. Can we PROVE that this God does or does not approve of abortion or gay folk marrying? No.
This has absolutely zero relevance to this conversation.
BUT it IS self evident that self determination, not being harmed, not being restricted from pursuit of happiness (so long as that pursuit does not infringe upon the rights of others) IS a good and necessary thing.
You continue to make this claim without proving it, even though virtually the entirety of human history would suggest that "don't harm others" is anything but self evident.
A few folks to whom this wasn't "self evident"
Muhammed
Saladin
Sultan Suileman
Napolean
Jean-jaques Dessalines
Hitler
Mussolini
Castro
Tojo
Mao
Kim's
I could go on, but I think I make my point.
Do you agree?
I agree that you haven't proven your point. I agree that you've moved the topic away from your original claim. I agree that you've offered nothing "specific", objective", nor any sort of authority that would under gird these "basic moral lines".
The thing that is the single most absurd in this entire pile of blather, is that the authors of the declaration, actually provided the source of the underlying authority and you completely avoided acknowledging it.
I'm leaving the comment below here. It's a comment that Dan deleted, and lied about. I'm leaving it here to contrast how Dan gets treated here, as opposed to how I get treated at Dan's. I know that sometimes reality isn't pleasant, especially when it illustrates someone who claims to follow Christ, yet behaving in a manner devoid of grace.
Dan,
Go ahead and ban me. I literally, factuality, objectivity answered your question at least 4 times before you finally deigned to accept it. The fact that you had to hide/delete multiple versions of my answer doesn’t help your case.
FYI, I’ll be dealing with your vague and subjective answer at my blog. I’ll deal with it there because I choose to allow you the freedom to comment without demanding that you do as I say, or deleting and lying about the deleted comments.
I know that you are 100% correct in choosing to be impatient and demand answers now while accompanying those demands with threats. The fact that you so quickly and generosity answered my one question after days of hoop jumping, lies, and silence, clearly gives you the standing to make your impatient demands and threats back to me.
So, yes I’ll answer your questions. But in s venue that’s a little less restrictive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
193 comments:
I don't believe he ever answered your question, even after acknowledging you "finally" answered his.
Dan is a coward and a really quite a reprobate. He's deleting me until I apologize for calling two proven whores and sluts, "whores" and "sluts", while he continues calling Trump...and pretty much every center-right individual, whatever HE feels is appropriate, true or not. The fact that there is video and photographic evidence to go along with the admissions of these two sexually immoral women means nothing, because somehow, despite Dan having no evidence, he regards these women as victims of sexual abuse that resulted in their sexually immoral behaviors as adults. Convenient, no?
Dan rejects God as the author of morality. He rejects murder as a sin because to him it should be obvious to the whole world that it is an evil, despite as you say, there are quite a large segment of the world population that has no problem with it. What WE hold self-evident...like the founders...is not what everyone holds as self-evident. And keep in mind, that terms suggests it is evident to those who hold the opinion, not to anyone else. On what basis can Dan regard anything as moral or immoral under such a condition? It's self-serving, but it's not a basis...not an authority on which he can say a given behavior is truly moral or immoral. Something objectively moral is so regardless of whether or not we hold it as self-evident. It is my position that if something is moral or immoral, it is because God has told us it is via Scripture. Murder is wrong because he says so, not because it causes the ultimate harm to the murdered. Homosexual behavior is always wrong because God prohibited it, and thus it is immoral behavior, regardless of the context or scenario in which it takes place. Dan only regards it as such if it is under certain conditions that Dan believes is harmful or immoral...not because it is objectively so, but because of some consensus of opinion. God's morality, as clearly revealed in Scripture is subordinate to Dan's which is not an objective standard. Dan's "morality" is subjective and self-evident to Dan's self, not everyone else's. Dan's "morality" is a morality of convenience to Dan.
Clearly the concept of not lying isn’t as much a part of this “near universal” moral code Dan talks about. Am I wrong that allowing people a platform to lie with virtually no correction, is virtually the same as telling the lies yourself?
Craig... "Please define, specifically and objectively, these “basic moral lines”, and explain what authority undergirds them."
I responded: DO NOT HARM OTHERS AGAINST THEIR WILL. This is one of the basic moral outlines that is so obvious as to be nearly universal.
1. I also responded that, IF you don't acknowledge "self-evident" as objective, then we have NO objective measure by which we can objectively prove moral questions. I've stated this repeatedly, and yet you keep raising it, as if it were a problem with my responses. Let the "can you objectively prove...?" question go, as we both appear to agree that we can't. Regardless, I've not stated that I can objectively prove as a fact which behaviors are immoral or not.
2. NONETHELESS, as I have stated, the Golden Rule, is indeed a near universal ruling about how to recognize moral/immoral behavior. "DO unto others as you'd have them do unto you" is written (in one form or the other) in every world religion, and I am not aware of many serious philosophies apart from religions that would disagree with it.
Do you recognize that reality? Do you disagree with the claim?
I'm NOT saying that all people live it out equally well or even well, just that it's a common rule: Do no harm to innocent people, do not hurt others, any more than you want to be hurt.
Do you recognize that reality? Do you disagree with the claim?
I'm NOT saying we always agree on what it means or how to live it out, just that it's a nearly universal common rule (and by "nearly universal," I mean merely that most groups of people and philosophies can and have agreed upon the notion).
https://www.nrm.org/2018/03/golden-rule-common-religions/
3. I have acknowledged that we don't always get right the notion of a Golden Rule or Do No Harm rule. I'm just noting that it IS an obvious and relatively clear idea.
Q: Should I take that person's car from him?
Does it cause harm? Is it what I wish someone would do to me?
Q. Should I rape that person?
Does it cause harm? Is it what I wish someone would do to me?
Q. Should I kill that person?
Does it cause harm? Is it what I wish someone would do to me?
Q. Should I assault that person?
Does it cause harm? Is it what I wish someone would do to me?
Q. Should I gossip about that person?
Does it cause harm? Is it what I wish someone would do to me?
I could go on but I REALLY don't think that the Golden Rule method is THAT hard of a measure that most of us can't agree upon most of the time.
Do you disagree?
4. If you don't buy into the Golden Rule/Do No Harm measure, what are you proposing in its place? Or are you saying that all is meaningless and we have NO HOPE of recognizing moral and immoral behavior?
I suspect that you are probably proposing "use the Bible/follow God" in some form or the other, but that is, itself, problematic. The Bible doesn't hand out God's answers definitively. People have used/misused the bible to justify slavery, war, murder, abuse, assault, rape, molestation, kidnapping, and all forms of oppression and abuse. WHOSE interpretation of the Bible shall we use? On WHOSE authority?
I suspect that you come back to something along the lines of "We should adopt the interpretation of the bible embraced by most/many modern conservatives (the ones who I agree with and align with) because, while it is imperfect, too, it's better than using The Golden Rule/Do No Harm as a measure..." Although, I'm not sure that you agree that it is imperfect, too, relying upon modern conservative interpretations of those conservatives with whom you align.
You tell me.
Beyond that, tell me how whatever it is you're proposing is more reliable and less subjective than the Golden Rule/Do No Harm measure.
Thanks.
I would add that Dan will certainly be aghast at what I've said above, as if what I said means I don't find murder immoral. Of course I do. I think people who murder have indeed caused great harm (duh!) but that we might find it wrong because of that harm inflicted, what makes it immoral, sinful and objectively so is because God forbids that we murder, NOT because some of us personally find it objectionable because of the harm caused as well. This might seem redundant based on what I'd already said above, but we're dealing with Dan (and others) who are eager to attack us based on whatever they can spin to serve that end.
As I pointed out the reality of your “no harm” moral code, doesn’t quite match your claims of “near universal” acceptance.
1. If you can’t prove “self evident” as objective, given the real world examples I pointed out, why would I acknowledge something you can’t prove and that doesn’t align with reality.
2. I’m not arguing the existence of the maxim, I just don’t see how you can elevate it to a “near universal” moral code in the face of the real world examples of societies based on the opposite.
3. Simply simply repeating points isn’t proof. Especially given the scientific/academic view that combines a completely different worldview, buttressed by science and “encoded in our DNA”. In the absence of a genetic/objective that explains/demands altruism, every one of your questions can be turned around to fit the scientific/academic worldview.
4. Interesting attempt to move the subject away from you being asked to prove the claims your made, to my views. Until you prove your claims, and/or refute the scientific/academic worldview I’ve given you a tase of, it seems pointless to introduce a third option into the discussion. How about we table this diversion until you prove your claims/disprove the science/academic claims?
I’ve never said we have “no hope” to recognize moral behavior. I’ve not made any claims in this conversation, I’ve been addressing problems wth yours. Let’s focus on that before we add more?
It’s interesting that you’re so quick to make assumptions, without having proven your side first.
So, you prove your claims and point out the failures of the scientific/academic folks, then we can move on.
I’ll give you I hint, unless you can prove some genetic predisposition for altruism that is more compelling that the “selfish gene” construct, you’ll have problems with the science/academic side of things.
I think part of Dan’s problem is a failure to objectively define harm, and to address the scientific insistence that the highest goal of humanity is self interest in advancing our genetic line.
As I pointed out the reality of your “no harm” moral code, doesn’t quite match your claims of “near universal” acceptance.
How so? What groups of people reject the No Harm/Golden Rule code? I'm not aware of any groups of people who do.
Are there INDIVIDUALS who do? Of course! I am not suggesting otherwise. By universal, I simply mean what I've stated... that all the major religions and many (most?) non-religious philosophies can all affirm it. Am I mistaken? Please provide support (again, NOT individuals, but societies and groups).
I have to note the reality that Dan responded to literally none of the specific problems I pointed out with his claims. Instead he tried to move the conversation away from his claims/comment, and to add additional topics.
I guess it’s unrealistic to expect that before moving on to other things.
What is with the consistent claims for me to objectively prove my claims when I've been quite clear that NEITHER of us can prove their claims in an objective sense. So, if you ask me again to prove my claims objectively, I will repeat that it can't be proven objectively and I'm not making a claim that is objectively provable. I'm stating that it is REASONABLY demonstrated.
It is a fact that all the major world religions affirm the Golden Rule. I can think of no major groups, religious or not, are opposed to a Golden Rule/Do No Harm rule. If they exist in any significant numbers, I am unaware of them. I know of no scientists who are opposed to the Golden Rule/Do No Harm rule or who suggest it is "wrong..." Are you?
If you think there are major groups of people who do not affirm the Do No Harm rule, please present that data.
If we say that "only" the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Christians affirm it, isn't that NEAR UNIVERSAL, in that most people in the world belong to these religions? How is that not nearly universal if some 85% of the world affirms it, just counting the religious? PLUS those who are not aligned with a religion who affirm it? Where is your data that there is some significant segment of the world who rejects the Golden Rule/Do No Harm rule?
I’ve already offered a small list of societies that represent an incredibly broad overview of history, that don’t hold your “harm” moral lines in high regard. I can supply more if that would help,
If you’re unaware of the prevailing view of much of the scientific world, that’s ignorance on your part.
My evidence is looking at reality or history.
If your proof is the existence of a few lines is some religious texts, as opposed to actual human behavior in the real world, I can’t help you.
I’ve already offered a small list of societies that represent an incredibly broad overview of history, that don’t hold your “harm” moral lines in high regard. I can supply more if that would help,
I see where you listed ELEVEN INDIVIDUALS who behaved badly/in an evil and oppressive manner. I don't see a list of societies that objectively reject the notion of the Golden Rule/Do No Harm idea. Do you have a list of whole societies/philosophies that reject it? If so, please provide the list with support that they actively reject the Golden Rule.
Am I mistaken that 85% of the population (all the religions of the world) is not a significant portion of the world that actively AFFIRMS the Golden Rule?
Even if you can find some (and I'm dubious), I don't think that negates the Golden Rule model as garbage or demonstrates that you have anything better.
Am I mistaken? If so, you'll have to do more to demonstrate and support where I'm mistaken.
I'm gladly admitting that the Golden Rule model is imperfect and imperfectly followed. But what else do we have?
At the same time, I just have to fall back to the notion that the Golden Rule/Do No Harm model is THAT hard to understand. Really? You don't think it's obvious that you don't want to be raped or have your loved ones raped? How is that an unusably imperfect model of a reasonable criterion for moral behaviors?
Unless you're going to suggest that we have no way of knowing how to behave morally, and I don't think you are, but that remains to be seen.
If you’re unaware of the prevailing view of much of the scientific world, that’s ignorance on your part.
I AM wholly unaware that "the prevailing view" of "much of the scientific world" rejects the Golden Rule. You'd have to provide some data to support that claim, because I highly doubt you are correct, if that's what you're saying.
If a religion gives people the option to convert or die, does it live according to your moral code?
If a religion, society, or political movement declares entire groups of people to be “unclean” or “not persons”, and uses those distinctions to oppress or kill is it following your moral code?
If a society is predicated on a small group of makes being the only group that matters, and allows that group to exert virtually unlimited power (including sexual) is that society following your moral code?
If a society deprives the vast majority of the population of a standard of living significantly above subsistence, is it following your moral code?
If a religion imposes actual penalties up to and including the death penalty on anyone who wants to de convert, does that follow your code?
If a society engages in multiple attempts to impose its control over other countries or societies either by force or by manipulation, is that society following your code?
I’ll gladly provide you some examples if you’re too lazy to do your own research,
The answer to all your questions is No, those entities responsible for causing harm are, by definition, NOT living up to the ideal of "don't harm innocent people"/Golden Rule. Just like the Christians who supported slavery or denied women basic rights or otherwise failed to live up to the ideal of the Golden Rule. But they still probably affirmed it, don't you think?
And to be clear, the Golden Rule is not MY code. It is the code the vast majority of the world affirms. Right? Am I mistaken? If so, please provide support.
I actually gave you the names of eleven individuals who led societies which were based on violation of your code.
In the absence of proof that 85% of the world actually lives in accordance with this moral code you claim they do, I’ll pass on accepting your word. Unless your simply claiming the existence of a rule in various religious texts proves your point. It’s probably worth pointing out that you’ve lowered your bar from “near universal acceptance” to 85% of XYZ theoretically accept some version of your code.
You really don’t understand the concept that you need to prove your claims, and that demanding that I do things I haven’t claimed I can do helps you.
I’ll give you this.
If you go with the notion (suggested by the definition of morality) that morals are variable from society to society and throughout history, then of course there is an argument that moral standards can be known.
The problem is that you’re proposing a “near universal”, moral code that’s accepted and acted on across all societies and history.
Craig, the 85% represents JUST the religions who affirm the Golden Rule/Do No Harm rule. Of course, many non-religious folks affirm it, as well. I suspect (and have no reason to doubt) that of the remaining 15%, probably 14% would affirm it. Just a guess, but I've seen you provide no data to suggest otherwise.
Think about it: How many people do you personally know, religious or otherwise, Christian or otherwise, who actively reject the Golden Rule? Indeed, aren't people who would say such a thing out loud so rare as to be considered a bit loathsome/worrisome? Wouldn't they be considered kooks and outliers precisely because the ANTI-Golden Rule position is so very rare?
I personally know of no one who actively affirms the anti-Golden Rule position. Do you?
If you are basing your moral code on the premise that it’s wrong to cause harm to another human, doesn’t that presuppose some minimal level of intrinsic, transcendent value to humans?
If you are basing your moral code on the premise that it’s wrong to cause harm to another human, doesn’t that presuppose some minimal level of intrinsic, transcendent value to humans?
Yes.
And this is why I don't allow you to comment on my blog. You are NOT banned, but if you don't engage in two-way, give and take conversation, then the conversation becomes meaningless. Also, if one side is not grounded in reality, that, too, makes meaningful conversation difficult.
Any chance you might start answering some of my questions so that it's an actual two way conversation?
Respectfully submitted.
And once again, it is not MY moral code. It's the Golden Rule which is embraced by the majority of the world.
Ethics (morality) is, “an illusion fibbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.”
Wilson & Ruse
“For some unexplained reason, humans simply function better if they are deceived by their genes into thinking that there is a disinterested objective morality binding upon them, which all should obey”
Wilson & Ruse
JBS Haldane explains altruism with a theory called “kin selection”
It seems as if infanticide is an instance of causing harm to others.
According to Steven Pinker infanticide “has been practiced and accepted in most cultures throughout history.”
Also Pinker, “a capacity of neonaticide is built into the biological design of our parental emotions.”
Is a society that systematically kills its born children living according to your code)
William Provine suggests that “There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will.”
In the absence of those three, what would drive altruistic behavior?
If sex without consent harms others, and if animals aren’t able to consent, then “We are animals”, “sex across the species barrier ceases to be an offense”
Steven Pinker
This is just a few quick examples of scientific pushback against your moral code.
So you have, what? Five scientists in the world who may or may not be opposed to the Golden Rule as a understanding of moral Behavior? Where's your evidence that they reject the Golden Rule? Where's your evidence that they represent anything like a majority?
If you’re going to make assertions about this moral code, I’ll refer to it as yours.
RE my examples. If you want to make assumptions about things you don’t know and can’t prove, that’s fine. Don’t expect me to take your assumptions more seriously than documented actions.
Got it, your 85% figure is simply made up based on your assumptions about the beliefs of individuals based on some degree of perceived affiliation with a group. No wonder the concept of proving your claims is such a problem for you.
I’ve literally given you multiple instances of societies that were based on denying the golden rule to at least part of their society.
If you believe that humans have intrinsic, transcendent value, where does that value come from?
I understand your confusion. You assume that I am obligated to instantly answer any and every question you ask irregardless of how far those questions lead away from the topic. This is compounded by your inability to distinguish between “I won’t answer that question, ever.”, and “I will answer questions that don’t pertain to the subject at hand later.”
The fact that you have engage in lying about my comments (after deleting then to hide the evidence), that you allow others to lie with impunity, and your capricious, random deleting of comments is why I’ve virtually stopped commenting there. I’ve chosen to alliw you a level of freedom and grace that you deny others. That’s why my recent question is the first time I’ve commented there in months. You’ve cultivated a hostile environment, I’ve chosen to spend as little time as possible in your graceless, toxic environment. This recent post is the first I’ve even read in quite some time.
Once again, if you’re going to make assertions about your moral code, I’m going to refer to it as yours.
Just one more attempt to move the conversation away from the topic.
Do you even read, or do you just ignore what’s inconvenient to your preconceptions.
What part of “just a few quick examples” would lead you to conclude that what I put out there was exhaustive. Of course, you expect everything to be spoon fed to you. Explain the how the provided examples make sense under your moral code? I’d suggest you do some additional research on your own, but you don’t even research and prove your own points.
Craig... "If you believe that humans have intrinsic, transcendent value, where does that value come from?"
I believe that everything has intrinsic value. I believe that birds have intrinsic value. I believe that cows and flowers have intrinsic value. I believe that this value in everything is for a wide variety of reasons. We all have intrinsic value in that we are part of the common world, a world that is beautiful and wondrous and delightful. We all have value in that we are part of a common World, codependent and interdependent ways of the beautiful and miraculous and observable.
Given your tendency towards impatience and jumping to conclusions, I’m done with this for tonight.
I lied. This hit me while doing dishes and I had to get it down before I forgot.
If your “do no harm” moral code is based on the fact that humans have an inherent, intrinsic, transcendent value. Then any worldview that denies the intrinsic, inherent, transcendent value of humans, will be hostile towards your “harm” moral code. Because there’s no reason not to harm someone that has no value.
To summarize your counter to my examples of societies that don’t demonstrate your “no harm” moral code. Your essentially trying to claim that those societies “affirmed” this “no harm” moral code, but that they chose to engage in behavior that was the exact opposite of the moral code they affirmed.
How does a society get credit for affirming something while engaging in societal behavior that completely contradicts what they claim to affirm.
One excuse is a common trend of denying that certain groups don’t have the intrinsic, inherent, transcendent value that you claim is important to your moral code.
In your March 1, 7:33pm comment... are you asking a question? Pointing out that under the Do No Harm moral construct, that people use it imperfectly? Yes, as I have been quite clear.
You see, the problem with morals is that we humans DO embrace morality imperfectly. Sometimes we all (that is, people from all societies, including those from Christian cultures and sub-cultures, along with all other groups) have embraced the Golden Rule while affirming or tolerating slavery. We have embraced the GR while tolerating sexism or the oppression of women... while tolerating abuse of the environment that serves to disproportionately harm the poor and sick... while tolerating abuse of immigrants. That doesn't mean that we don't embrace the GR, though... just that we do so imperfectly.
Do we get "credit" for embracing the GR rule while sometimes not following it? Well, certainly not in the areas where we don't follow it. What's your point?
And again, what is the alternative?
Craig... "Your essentially trying to claim that those societies “affirmed” this “no harm” moral code, but that they chose to engage in behavior that was the exact opposite of the moral code"
Yes. I think that's clearly the case.
Here's a question for you. Plenty of Christians in the past affirmed slavery and sexism and misogyny of the sort that denied rights to women, this in spite of affirming the Golden Rule.
Is it the case that you think they did not affirm the golden rule or just that they took it less seriously than they should, or just failed to understand that they were not honoring the Golden Rule?
With those racist or sexist or misogynist Christians today end in the past, I see no reason to assume they did not affirm the Golden Rule. Rather, I think it is more likely they just failed to live up to it.
So, your proof of the effectiveness and acceptance of your moral theory is that entire societies don’t follow it.
The societies I’ve mentioned codified the mistreatment of those they considered “less” than human. There’s no way to argue full acceptance of your moral code and failure to live up to it, when the opposite is codified. See my point about individuals and societies that deny the inherent, intrinsic, transcendent value of humans.
You do realize that it’s absurd to prove something by citing evidence of people not doing what your trying to prove.
Generally, if I ask a question it’ll be followed by this handy symbol (?), just so you know.
So, if “everything” has value because it’s part of a”common world”, are you suggesting that everything has equal value?
Is it safe to assume that you aren’t claiming that humans have objective intrinsic, inherent, transcendent value, simply that you believe they have value?
If value comes from being in this “common world” in what sense is that value transcendent?
are you suggesting that everything has equal value?
No.
Is it safe to assume that you aren’t claiming that humans have objective intrinsic, inherent, transcendent value, simply that you believe they have value?
I think you and I have agreed that we can't objectively prove things like "humans have objective, intrinsic, inherent, transcendent value..." Am I mistaken?
Nonetheless, I think we can demonstrate to reasonable people that, of course, humans have intrinsic value. It is an easily agreed upon value that most people can affirm, I believe.
Do you disagree?
If value comes from being in this “common world” in what sense is that value transcendent?
For me (and not me alone), the beauty and mystery and grandeur of all the world is transcendent, miraculous, "surpassing the ordinary; exceptional..." AT THE SAME time that it is ordinary. Transcendent in the sense that we humans can easily dismiss the ordinary as banal or "merely physical..." or even "fallen and evil..." It is transcendent in that sense. If you don't think that fits the word "transcendent," I'm not tied to it and I certainly can't prove it objectively, as you can't either.
your proof of the effectiveness and acceptance of your moral theory is that entire societies don’t follow it.
No question mark here, but I believe this is a question. No, that's not my proof of the effectiveness and acceptance of the Golden Rule (which again, is not mine... although I am flattered that you put me right up there with Jesus, et al!). First of all, I don't believe that "entire societies don't follow it." I reject that claim as non-factual.
That entire societies have always had histories of not FULLY following it or that ideas about what is and isn't just and fair and good have changed (with Christians and all others throughout history) is not evidence that they don't accept the Golden Rule, just that cultural values and understandings change and evolve.
Again, for those Christians who were opposed to equal rights for women or who supported slavery, does that mean they REJECTED the GR? Or just that they didn't have their eyes fully opened to the very cruel and unjust nature of the oppression of slavery and sexism?
Perhaps now would be a good time for you to start answering questions so that we can have a give and take conversation?
Regarding Nazis and others (like Christians in early US history) who supported clearly evil/harmful behaviors towards certain Others, one historian/author notes...
Koonz writes, was that "despite having been raised to believe in the Golden Rule and probably more or less honoring it in their private lives, citizens of the Third Reich were shaped by a public culture . . . so compelling that even those who objected to one or another aspect of Nazism came to accept the existence of a hierarchy of racially based human worth."
That is, even the Nazis accepted and "believed in" the Golden Rule, just as Christian US slave owners did. They just were able to reason their way to some evil conclusions/actions nonetheless. In other words, it was a failure to fully embrace and understand the GR, not a rejection of it.
Do you think this is a mistaken interpretation?
I think you've decided that we agree on a lot of things. I'm using transcendent in the normal fashion, which seems to contradict your usage. Are you sure that you agree that humans have transcendent value, using a more standard definition?
If not following isn't your proof, why offer it.
I understand that you're trying to grade on a curve here, but the reality seems to be that any society that systematically, and legally denies the fully humanity of any of the members of that society, then any claim that they follow your code seems suspect at best.
"...just that cultural values and understandings change and evolve."
If by "cultural values" you mean morals, then you literally can't argue that any "cultural value" is universally immoral.
As I've said repeatedly, I have no problem answering questions that are on topic and relevant. It's the others that will have to wait.
"Again, for those Christians who were opposed to equal rights for women or who supported slavery, does that mean they REJECTED the GR?
They clearly rejected the GR as a universal ("near universal") moral code. Since you've pointedly excluded Jesus from your reasoning (even ignoring the contradiction in your example), I won't go there. But, if you systematically exclude entire groups of humans from practicing the GR, then it's reasonable to conclude that your actions demonstrate that you don't view it as a "near universal" moral principle.
"Or just that they didn't have their eyes fully opened to the very cruel and unjust nature of the oppression of slavery and sexism?"
I guess it's possible that you could argue that ignorance of a "near universal" moral code is an excuse for harming others, but that opens quite the can of worms. I understand why you've done it, but it undercuts your claim of "near universal".
Is your argument really that ignoring the GR due to peer pressure demonstrates "near universal" acceptance of it as a "moral code". This attempt to use societies that systematically and legally based themselves on denying the value of all humans, and on living the literal opposite of the GR, is frankly bizarre even for you.
"That is, even the Nazis accepted and "believed in" the Golden Rule", this is clearly a claim of fact, yet it's not proven. Please do so. Further, the NAZI hierarchy of human worth wasn't limited to race. If your author isn't aware of that then maybe he's not the best source.
It's like your saying that A) "We accept and believe the GR, and Non-A) We ignore what we believe and practice the exact opposite, are equal.
If you're reduced to arguing that millions of people actively participating in a society that is actively acting and organized around harming others, is an example of the validity of your "near universal" moral code, then please, stop wasting your time.
I'm sure you've heard the old saying, "Actions speak louder than words.", well actions are pretty darn loud.
Even Jesus warned about those who claim to "believe in Him", and "accept His teachings". I think He said something like "I never knew you.".
Please, stop. You're just digging a deeper hole.
One last question. If someone claims the GR as the basis for a "near universal" moral code, yet that someone allows people to bear false witness about others, do their actions match their words?
Craig... "the fully humanity of any of the members of that society, then any claim that they follow your code seems suspect at best..."
To be sure, all of humanity, including Christians, have always had a hard time living up to moral ideals. I don't disagree with that. Do you have a better system to propose?
Perhaps if you began answering some questions we can see what you're trying to get to.
Tell me this, Craig, suppose you are mistaken about the rights of gay folks and your support of those who are opposed to gay folk getting married IS an act of oppression and thus, those Christians who oppose gay folks getting married are oppressing them and, thus, failing to live up to the Golden Rule. Are you making the case that those Christians reject the Golden Rule out of hand because they err in their treatment of gay folks?
Wow. Lots to read, but no time at present. I'll just add this fact: "self-evident" is NOT at all "objective". It is subjective because as I've stated already, what is self-evident to one person, isn't necessarily so to another...to say nothing of whether or not it is even factual.
For example, Dan would most likely presume to regard calling a woman who sells her body for sex a "whore" to be self-evidently immoral, while honest people would regard it as nothing more than a statement of fact...which it is. So much of what Dan considers moral or immoral is subjective, but he hides behind more obvious sins like murder, which itself isn't immoral for the reasons he gives for believing so. What he refers to as "immoral" are simply behaviors he finds objectionable for one reason or another. Finding something personally objectionable...even if a large number of people agree...doesn't make it immoral and that large contingent in agreement doesn't stand as an authoritative basis for saying it is. It's just opinion shared by many.
Craig... "Are you sure that you agree that humans have transcendent value, using a more standard definition?"
As someone who believes in a Creator God, God who lovingly created the world and everything in it, I do affirm that I believe in the transcendent value of everything in the world. Including humans. Neither of us can prove this objectively, but I think it's reasonable.
Art,
As I pointed out, if those things were "self evident" to George III, they wouldn't have needed to spell it out. Further, given the utterly and totally uniqueness of what was being formed in the colonies, it's safe to say that no other nation in the world found those things "self evident" at the time. Of course, a number still don't.
To Dan's credit, he's been quite clear over the years that morality is subjective. I do agree that putting forth the argument that we decide correctness based on the number of people who agree with something is problematic,
Dan,
Given your insistence that this conversation not be grounded in God, and your less than specific past answers about what a "Creator God" means to you, and your unwillingness to ground human value in a Creator, I was trying to tread lightly and not open up a can of worms.
Craig... "he's been quite clear over the years that morality is subjective..."
To try to help you understand, let me clarify. I believe in objective right and wrong. I do not believe we can objectively prove right and wrong.
At least as long as we are setting aside self self-evident.
That is, I believe that slavery is objectively wrong... That God would disapprove of it because it causes harm to God's creation.
But I can't prove that.
Thus, I'm not saying there is no objective right or wrong. Just that we can't prove objectively right and wrong. Do you understand the distinction?
This is edging toward off topic, but I'll allow the digression for now.
1. The fact that you "believe' morality is objective, means nothing in the discussion of whether it actually is or not.
2. Then despite your "belief" you function as if morality is subjective.
3. Since you haven't demonstrated that "self evident" is objective, consistent, or universal, it is a term with no value to this conversation. Further, your inability to acknowledge that the term potentially had a more specific meaning in the context of Scottish Common Sense Realism, and the implications of that worldview raises even more questions you haven't answered. Finally, you haven't even attempted to rebut my contentions regarding the "self evident" nature of the Declaration. So, it's not that we're "setting aside" anything, it's that you have quite a lot of things to explain before it becomes relevant.
3. Yet, millions of other people and cultures believe that slavery is right and that God ordains it. I'm talking about 2020, not 1850. So, if you can't prove them wrong or you right, you've simply expressed a personal preference and you have no standing to criticize those who disagree with you.
4. Which, in practice, relegates it to a subjective concept. Further, you're ignoring the people who are making the (objective) claim, that morality is subjective. I believe I've provided a definition at some point, if not.
"Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal."
Art brought this up, but I thought about this last night.
By claiming that the moral code you propose is "nearly universal", you are attempting to confer status to your claim simply because it's "nearly universal". Leaving aside your lack of anything resembling proof, isn't appealing to numbers a logical fallacy?
Does saying that "A lot of people, I mean a really, really large number of people, I'm talking about a lot lot lot lot lot lot lot of people, believe this is neither rational or convincing. Especially since you'd need to concede this standard or proof as convincing even when you didn't agree.
If you were making the argument that God ordained morality, you'd be making a rational consistent argument.
If you were arguing from utilitarianism or pragmatism that morality "works" or has an objective, measurable, universal benefit, that would be a rational argument. It's rational, but raises other problems.
But, the "It's a lot of people" argument, not so much.
Craig... "you have no standing to criticize those who disagree with you..."
I would respectfully disagree. Just because neither you nor I can prove objectively that slavery is wrong, just because even some Christians might say that there are some circumstances where slavery is right or acceptable, doesn't mean we have no standing to call it wrong.
It is self-evidently wrong. It is clearly an abuse of Human Rights.
Now there may be some few people who might disagree, but the world generally recognizes this. So we have it on the standing of the vast majority of humanity that rape, slavery, abuse, child abuse, murder, theft, etc, etc are all wrong. That's some significant standing.
You may feel otherwise, but you would be in the minority if you're going to try to make that case.
Are you trying to make the case that there is no basis to call these great evils immoral?
Can you provide support for your claim that "millions" of people support slavery? It may be true, but I'm not aware that there's any data that supports the claim.
According to the world population review and the US State Dept there are over 46 million slaves in 167 countries throughout the world. So, it’s a reasonable estimate of “millions”, but the point still stands that there are a lot of people who consider slavery moral.
My bad, I meant to say that you have no objective standard to criticize others regarding slavery.
If you think referring back to terms you haven’t defined is a good idea, go for it.
But it’s still just you trying to impose a subjective standard on people you disagree with.
Dan,
I want to be clear that I “agree” that the only way to build a coherent moral system is to base it on Jesus Great Commandments (Love God with your whole being, love your neighbor as yourself), where you lose me is your insistence that this ethic is “near universal”. Between lived experience and a study of history it’s clear that this ethos isn’t “near universal”. You’re arguing that as long as people give lip service to this ethic, that you’re satisfied that you’re point is made. But in reality aren’t actions and behaviors more telling than words?
The biggest problem I see with your moral code is that you think you can overlay it across any worldview and that it’ll make sense. As I’ve pointed out not all world-views highly value life. Not all world-views value altruism.
You’ve taken a christian moral code, stripped it away from the Christian world-view, removed it from even the possibility that it functions as a coherent, objective world-view, and repackaged it as a “one size fits virtually all” based on your opinions about how others think.
I’m sure you think this is awesome, but trying to justify it is simply a waste of your time absent a fully orbed, coherent world-view.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
The data and facts are the GR is near Universal in acceptance. How it plays out has changed over the years.
Christians used to be okay with denying the right to vote to women and black people. That was clearly a violation of the Golden Rule, but they did not view it that way at the time. Morals and values change over the years and across cultures.
I would suggest we have progressed to learn better what it means to obey the Golden Rule. Not that we follow it perfectly or consistently... just the things that used to be considered acceptable, even by Christians and good people, are now recognized as great evils. Do you disagree?
And no, I'm not arguing that the people give lip service to it, it doesn't matter what they do. I'm saying that they genuinely tend to believe the Golden Rule and just what was acceptable was different back then.
Jesus noted that his followers would accomplish even greater things that he would. I would suggest that the progress made in human rights and understanding the golden rule is an example of that.
If the “data and facts”, back you up then why haven’t we seen any.
So, if they “believe”, but it doesn’t matter “what they do” (don’t live it) then how do you quantify belief if it doesn’t lead to action.
Look, if you have proof, great. If not then stop with the vague “examples”.
The proof is that the majority of the world's religions affirm the Golden Rule. From all evidence most people affirm it. They live it imperfectly but they do affirm it. That's what the data that I see confirms. That's what my real-world lived experience confirms.
Do you have data that supports the suggestion that they are actually secretly rejecting it, in spite of what they might affirm?
Do you have any evidence to suggest that while they may make mistakes 5% of the time, that they are generally striving to adhere to the Golden Rule? Especially in regards to the greater harm type actions, like rape, murder, slavery, Etc?
My evidence would be that the vast majority of people do not do these greater harm type actions.
You call that proof. The fact that multiple religious texts have a rule? You’re seriously arguing that the existence of rules in religious texts as proof. You’re seriously now asserting that it’s about following a rule book.
You’re seriously just making up numbers (5%), and pretending that it’s proof.
Until you deal with all the examples I’ve given individually and demonstrate that I’m wrong, I’m done taking this blather seriously any more.
You may be serious in your belief, but to try to impose it on anyone else is ridiculous.
How do you know that what you perceive as following the GR, isn’t actually a calculated strategy of helping others so that they help us? How do you know that “reciprocal altruism” isn’t programmed into our genes to enhance our personal chances for survival and to further my genetic line? How do you know that what you perceive as good deeds aren’t ultimately selfish?
I'm saying I have no data on which to make a guess that people aren't supportive of the GR. You appear willing to make that guess. I'm not.
Craig... "How do you know that what you perceive as good deeds aren’t ultimately selfish?"
Because I have no reason to be so suspicious or doubtful or devious? Because I know people and see them doing good things and have no data on which to base a claim that they're doing it for nefarious reasons or selfish reasons?
I mean, to be sure, I see people do things like give donations at Christmas time to the poor and it is at least partially motivated by the own feel good they get from it. But it is also motivated by a desire to help out the poor, even if it's in a perhaps patronizing Manor. But I see nothing that suggests overt evil intent behind these good acts, by and large.
Craig... "How do you know that “reciprocal altruism” isn’t programmed into our genes to enhance our personal chances for survival and to further my genetic line?"
That may will partially play a part. It doesn't in any way undermine the notion that people by and large do affirm the Golden Rule. What is your data to suggest that people, en masse, do not embrace the Golden Rule?
Craig refers to numbers regarding the number of slaves estimated to exist in over 100 countries. I'm pretty sure I've posted this information not so very long ago as well, and with a link to my source. It certainly contradicts much of what Dan wants us to believe is true, including the "people are basically good" notion.
I also find truth in your final statement. It's one thing to espouse the Golden Rule. It's quite another to do good with no expectation of reciprocity, which is the true understanding of Christ's teachings. Thus, if one lives by the GR while expecting others to treat them in the same manner, they aren't really living the GR as Christ taught it, so it is not true that everyone is affirming the same thing.
If you have “no data”, then why do you keep making claims (“nearly universal”, 5%, etc)? No data means no data.
So, you have no way to judge and you’ll just choose what’s most helpful to your unsupported opinions, got it.
If we’re genetically programmed to only engage in altruistic behavior because it benefits us, it’s literally the opposite of the GR.
I do love how you’ve staked your entire moral code on a rule. What rule book is that in?
Art,
It’s the difference between selfless and selfish, Dan thinks selfish is ok as long as it “supports” his ruling.
I figure that if there are 46 million slaves, that it’s reasonable to conclude that there are at least a million people who support slavery. It seems like a reasonable conclusion.
It’s just one more thing Dan’s ignored in this thread.
Afterthought ignored the slavery thing. It's just, what's the relevance? Let's say there are 46 million people who own slaves. First of all, do you know what the world's population is? Seven billion. Do you know what percentage 46 million is of 7 billion? Less than 1%, correct?
So, if owning slaves is your measure of who doesn't believe in the Golden Rule, then less than 1% makes it pretty Universal. That's first of all
Secondly, I've been asking you, do you think that the Christian slave owners 150 years ago rejected the Golden Rule? I'm quite sure that there were slave owners a misogynist and homophobes who still believes to Golden Rule. They just failed to apply it correctly.
Perhaps now would be a good time for you to begin to answer some questions, as I have addressed at least most of your questions, if not all.
Craig... "If we’re genetically programmed to only engage in altruistic behavior because it benefits us, it’s literally the opposite of the GR"
Says who? Who says that recognizing the golden rule is beneficial for everyone renders your belief in the Golden Rule invalid? How so? Does the bible teach that? Have you read some research about this? Or is that just how it seems to you?
Of course living the golden rule is beneficial for everyone, of course it is mutually beneficial, to the degree that it has lived out.
"An eye for an eye leaves the world blind..." is a similar maxim that acknowledges the mutually beneficial nature of the Golden Rule. This is part of the practical genius of the Golden Rule.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Nothing in that phrase suggest that recognizing the beautiful mutually beneficial nature of such a rule is part of why it is practical.
Seems to me.
Craig... If you have “no data”, then why do you keep making claims (“nearly universal”, 5%, etc)? No data means no data.
I have no data to support YOUR CLAIMS about suggesting that people reject the GR if they don't live up to it in some ways. I have data to support my conclusions, but none to support YOUR conclusions.
That is, it seems you want to suggest that I must prove with data people's intentions if they affirm the GR (as most of the world appears to do, by just the sheer volume of religions that affirm it, if nothing else), but you don't feel a need to provide data that says that they actively reject the GR, in spite of affirming it. Why is it I have to provide data for people's intentions but you don't?
Craig... "What rule book is that in?"
All of them. Or dang near.
Craig... "I do love how you’ve staked your entire moral code on a rule..."
It's a rule with straightforward, understandable reasoning behind it.
What is immoral? That which causes harm. That which we wouldn't want someone else to do to us.
This is a reasoned position. People can understand it. It's rational and understandable to all people, regardless of background. WHY should I not do that action that causes harm to innocent people? Because it causes harm to innocent people, and we wouldn't want someone to do this to us if we were innocent. It's exceedingly reasonable. Do you disagree?
The problem with appeals to a particular religion or a particular God is that not everyone agrees that a given God exists or not everyone agrees with a particular tenets of a religion. That's a very limiting way to try to Define morality. Additionally, you have humans deciding, "this is what I think God calls moral..." and humans are famously often times mistaken about what the gods believe.
After all, of the dozens of other gods and religions in the world, you no doubt don't place any credence in what these other religions teach to be moral, do you?
On what rationed consistent basis would we choose one religious group (or, some subsets of one religious group, since religions often don't agree with each other even within one religion) to be the authorities on what is and isn't moral?
Dan,
If you’re going to blatantly misrepresent what I’ve said, it doesn’t encourage me to answer your questions. The fact that in addition to misrepresenting what I said, you ignored that the slavery statistics were an answer to a question you asked.
If you’re going to bitch about me not answering your questions, itself a misrepresentation, then putting it in the context of you misrepresenting an answer to one of your questions is either dishonest or stupid.
I’ve dealt with your “didn’t apply it correctly” at least twice.
I’d argue that anyone who engages in behavior or a worldview that treats any humans as less than human, is living contrary to the GR. They are choosing to live in a way that is completely divorced from their professed beliefs.
What’s more indicative of someone’s true beliefs, words or actions?
Says who? Many if not all evolutionary biologists, I’ve given you some names to research, I’m sorry you’re too lazy.
Of course, you simply ignored the point of the quote. But I like your attempt to argue that acting selfishly is actually acting selflessly.
Got it. You’ve now decided that you’re going all in on one rule, and you’re reason why is because it’s in multiple rule books.
I guess you’re willing to sacrifice intellectual honesty and consistency when it seems expedient.
If “immoral” = “causes harm”, and if you agree that lies about specific individuals cause harm, then when will you live up to your own rule?
I’ll grant that as an ideal for individuals that your rule has some merit, from a semi rational standard.
But the reason you see it as rational is that it’s you’ve co-opted the Judeo/Christian context you bring with you from your background. You choose to ignore the fact that not everyone agrees that altruism is always the best option. You ignore the fact that if one buys into a materialist worldview or a worldview steeped in the various evolutionary sciences, they believe that “survival of the fittest” or “nature is red in tooth and claw” are the only rules that matter. Or, if you strip any unique value from humans (“computers made of meat”), why would altruism make sense? Despite your efforts, you’ve snuck a religious rule in, and are justifying it by appealing to numbers. Not only that, but numbers you can’t define and have made up different ones when called on that particular logical fallacy.
You don’t even bother to justify your rule based on utility or pragmatism, then you try to pass of the absurdity of “selfish=selfless”.
Actually I’m a proponent of the “All Truth is God’s Truth.” school of thought. So I’d say that things that are truly moral are always moral. Of course your problem is, how many of the numbers of religions you cite, 1. Borrowed this notion from Judaism/Christianity, 2. Actually believe it applies equally to all people.
IF humans are “deciding” what “God calls moral.” (and it disagrees with God), then you’d have a problem. But if humans are simply repeating what God has called moral (and not trying to take credit away from God), I fail to see the problem.
I’d say that choosing a religious group by the reasonable and rational method of comparing the entity of the teachings and the associated worldview with the reality we experience and choosing the one that most closely matched reality would be a good place to start.
Your problem is that you’re limiting the potential arbiters of morals to “religious groups”, you’re ignoring non religious groups, science, and other competing worldviews, by not engaging with what they say about morality. If you really think that Singer advocating for infanticide, espousing a nature that’s “red in tooth and claw”, and philosophical/methodological naturalism aren’t making competing claims of morality (not only morality, but objective morality) then your blind, ignorant, naive, or stupid. That’s ignoring political movements.
Finally, the fact that you’ve decreed that things like morals and religion fall outside of objective knowledge (or of our ability to objectively know, which is a distinction with out a practical difference), you’ve ceded truth to a matter of majority rules (you started with “nearly universal”, then played the 5% card, neither of which you’ve proven correct). I don’t think you’d admit this, I think you’ll hide behind the “it’s opinion”, “we can’t know”, or one of your other stock lines. But the effective reality is that you’ve effectively removed “religion” from the sphere of things that can be known.
What you’re left with is trying to manufacture a way to sneak the bits of Judeo/Christian teaching that you like into a “moral code” that you treat as objective, without actually claiming it to be objective.
Final questions.
Without resorting to anything religious, explain why it’s universally moral to always place others above oneself?
Why is it universally immoral to harm someone, if harming one person saves another (others) from harm?
Why is it universally immoral to put one’s own safety, pleasure, advancement, and descendants before anyone else?
Remember no direct, or indirect appeals to religion of any sort. Also, unless you’re prepared to conclusively prove that “nearly universal”, objectively decides morality, don’t play the appeal to numbers card,
“I “have no data to support YOUR CLAIMS about suggesting that people reject the GR if they don't live up to it in some ways. I have data to support my conclusions, but none to support YOUR conclusions.
That is, it seems you want to suggest that I must prove with data people's intentions if they affirm the GR (as most of the world appears to do, by just the sheer volume of religions that affirm it, if nothing else), but you don't feel a need to provide data that says that they actively reject the GR, in spite of affirming it. Why is it I have to provide data for people's intentions but you don't?”
If you have this data, not simply made up numbers and percentages, provide it. FYI, appealing to numbers isn’t data, it’s an assumption about what millions of people believe.
I copy/pasted this here to keep the flow of my comments together.
I’d argue that anyone who engages in behavior or a worldview that treats any humans as less than human, is living contrary to the GR.
I'd argue the same ON THE ACTIONS/BEHAVIORS where they are acting contrary to the GR. But that doesn't mean that they reject the GR, out of hand. It means that they are messing up on a particular action.
If it turns out that modern conservatives are mistaken about their beliefs about homosexuality and those who mock gay folk for getting married are actually contributing to oppression of gay folk (causing Harm/failing to live up to the GR), does that mean that they REJECT the GR, out of hand... or merely that they are mistaken in their application of it towards gay folk?
You’ve now decided that you’re going all in on one rule, and you’re reason why is because it’s in multiple rule books.
I guess you’re willing to sacrifice intellectual honesty and consistency when it seems expedient.
No. I'm specifically and literally NOT saying "Here is a rule we should follow because it is in a religious book (or multiple religious books)" I'm saying that is NOT the reason to set up rules/understand morality.
I'm saying that Do No Harm/GR is reasonable BECAUSE it is measurable and rational REGARDLESS of whether you adhere to a given religious book or not. We should embrace it because it's reasonable and measurable and observable. It's easy to understand it, at least on the face of it.
What would you suggest in its place?
Craig... If “immoral” = “causes harm”, and if you agree that lies about specific individuals cause harm, then when will you live up to your own rule?
I'm saying "causes harm" = "immoral," just to be clear. I do agree that false claims cause harm. I'm not aware of places where I fail to live up to the rule. Perhaps if you want to take up some SPECIFIC LITERAL example, I could deal with it, but your practice of trading in vague accusations makes a response difficult.
Regardless, I AFFIRM CLEARLY the Golden Rule. I AFFIRM that we should not pass on a false claim. I AFFIRM that a leader who daily passes on false claims is untrustworthy and unfit for office and would never get my vote.
Will you affirm the same?
Craig... they believe that “survival of the fittest” or “nature is red in tooth and claw” are the only rules that matter.
I suspect that you can't demonstrate that this is a widespread belief amongst scientists, which I believe is what you're trying to do here... although it's hard to tell because the claim is vague and non-specific.
Despite your efforts, you’ve snuck a religious rule in, and are justifying it by appealing to numbers.
I'm literally NOT doing that. I'm supporting the rule because it's reasonable and something we can agree upon, by and large. In the context of a world with no way of objectively clarifying what is and isn't moral, this measure is a reasonable point we can, by and large, agree upon, even if imperfectly.
====
And setting aside your various questions which appear to arise from similar misunderstandings of what I'm actually saying, you get to this, which I THINK gets to the heart of answering some of the more serious questions I have, which boil down to "What are you proposing in place of Do No Harm...?" You say...
t if humans are simply repeating what God has called moral (and not trying to take credit away from God), I fail to see the problem.
1. What of those people who don't believe in gods? Why should they heed what your god has allegedly said?
2. Can you prove that your god has called some things moral? No, you can't, not objectively. So, again, why would someone who doesn't believe you are understanding what God has said correctly OR who doesn't believe in your god adhere to your opinions about what God has said?
3. As a point of fact, GOD has not come down and said "HERE IS WHAT I CONSIDER MORAL..." It literally has not happened. Rather, we have books literally written by humans and other humans literally saying, "These passages here, here and here represent literal rules from GOD that are universal and apply to YOU," but that is a human saying some rules and saying that God said them, not GOD SAYING them. In other words, how do people KNOW that those humans who say, "GOD SAID that these actions are moral" are speaking for God and doing so correctly and without error?
4. Are you suggesting that people, in general, ought to heed what the humans who believe that God gave a certain set of rules... should other people and traditions accept those human beliefs as authoritative?
5. I assume you would answer NO to question 4. If so, and we don't have that authoritative voice to adhere to what some humans believe God said, what do we use in lieu of that human tradition's set of rules?
Craig... "Without resorting to anything religious, explain why it’s universally moral to always place others above oneself?"
I do not believe is universally moral to always place others above one's self.
Craig... "Why is it universally immoral to harm someone, if harming one person saves another (others) from harm?"
Because we ought not harm innocent people, we ought to do unto others as we'd have them do unto ourselves.
If I could save 1000 people by raping and shooting one 10 year old girl, I probably would not do it. If I DID do it, it would be immoral still. Just debatable as whether or not is more immoral to cause harm to the one innocent than it is to allow the harm to the thousand others.
If you were given that choice, do you think it would be a moral good to rape and kill a 10 year old girl to save a thousand others?
What you’re trying to do here is conflate individuals with the groups they belong to. I mentioned earlier some behaviors that violated the GR, and you agreed that they did. All of those behaviors are codified in either religions or societies that you claim hold the GR sacred.
If you want to argue that a religion that claims to follow the GR yet excludes, persecutes, expels, or kills people by denying them value as humans hasn’t simply “goofed”, the’ve Intentionally embraced things that violate the things they claim to believe.
I’d ask you for your objective proof about gays, but you won’t produce anything, so I won’t bother.
What you ignore is that at least one religion and multiple societies that you are using as proof of the “near universal” acceptance of the GR, are actively engaged in killing homosexuals. You’ll give them a pass, or at least ignore the contradiction with your appeal to numbers, while simultaneously equating disagreement with harm.
Unlike you, I can’t remove the two greasiest commandments from their context. So, I would argue that someone who claims to be a Christian who mocks a homosexual is violating the 2 greatest commandments because all humans are created in the image of God, and God’s creation shouldn’t be mocked. I’m not willing to simply brush it off as a mistake.
What’s interesting is that your response to anyone who transgresses your arbitrary and vague guidelines and who you perceive speaks badly of others. I’ve never seen you point out the “mistake” and offer forgiveness on a regular basis. If your response is that you started out doing that and you’ve had to move on to more stringent judgement and measures, then wouldn’t that sane standard apply to a society or religion who persist in “mistakes”for centuries even after they’d been corrected?
The true test of so many things is the degree to which people live up to their own standards.
Now, for someone who’s non Christian, I guess the “violation” depends on their willingness to be mocked back. I find it problematic that you can’t comprehend a situation where someone might be mocked, but not harmed. I’m guessing that most relatively normal,well adjusted adults are capable of surviving mockery without harm. But that’s just me. I routinely get mocked, lied about, spoken of in foul vitriol, without sustaining any harm. Again that’s me making choices.
You probably ignored this, but one example I gave was the DFL controlled VA house passed a bill to allow actual humans, that are born alive, to be killed or allowed to die. Please explain how that fits with your GR moral code.
During the periods of horrible persecution by the Roman Empire, there were two distinct behaviors that set Christians apart. 1. The refusal to recant their faith in the face of gruesome, horrible death. 2. Their willingness to rescue the children that the Romans would leave out in the woods to die from exposure or starvation, and/or be eaten by animals.
I’m guessing that some of the folx that voted on the VA bill, or other similar bills, claim to be Christian and to believe the GR. Yet, when compared with the persecuted Christians of Rome, you’d never know it.
You’re willingness to blindly base your proof on what people say, rather than what they do is strange.
Why is it universally immoral to put one’s own safety, pleasure, advancement, and descendants before anyone else?
I don't believe that it's universally immoral to do this.
Answered your questions. Now: What are you proposing in lieu of the GR/Do No Harm ruling as a test for morality for the world at large/the world beyond the circle of those who agree with you?
you’ve ceded truth to a matter of majority rules (you started with “nearly universal”, then played the 5% card, neither of which you’ve proven correct)
I have not. I've fallen back to common sense and reason. IF a majority of the world supporting killing gay and trans children/young adults, then the majority of the world would have failed to live up to the GR/Do No Harm principle, objectively so. They may have offered reasons for the exception, but they still would have literally failed to live up to the reasonable, rational "DO NO HARM" measure, when they've advocated harm. Literally.
Thus, it is not an appeal to the majority, it is an appeal to reason.
I think this is what the founders were doing with their appeal to the "self evident" nature of human rights. We, as humans, evolve morally. Once upon a time it was acceptable and not considered immoral to treat women and children as chattel property. Once upon a time, it was acceptable to enslave people. EVEN THOUGH doing this failed to live up to the GR/Do No Harm rule that societies/philosophies tended to agree upon at the time.
The genius of the Enlightenment thinking was in speaking a more solid truth to what can't be proven objectively but is, no doubt, objectively true: That human rights SHOULD be a guarantee for all people. It is self evident that we should not harm, rape, enslave, oppress, disenfranchise or otherwise harm other human beings. Having no way to objectively prove it, they appealed to the self evident claim because it is and should be self evident to most of us, most of the time.
That we have historically failed to fully recognize it, does not mean that we have failed to recognize it... just that we've imperfectly recognized it.
Am I mistaken?
Do you recognize that the large swaths of the Christian church has historically failed to recognize human rights/the GR/Do No Harm as it relates to slavery, to women's rights, to the oppression of gay folk and immigrants at various times and places? This, in spite of both affirming the GR AND affirming "God's Word" and the rules supposedly found within, right? But we have progressed, and more rights are being recognized all the time.
I suspect that in your circles, you no longer are willing to condemn gay folks getting married an Evil or Moral Wrong and worthy of criminalization (even though plenty of other conservatives still are) and, if so, I'd suggest it has to do with recognizing the value of the GR/Do No Harm as a criteria for moral decisions. Yes, no?
What you ignore is that at least one religion and multiple societies that you are using as proof of the “near universal” acceptance of the GR, are actively engaged in killing homosexuals. You’ll give them a pass...
I'm literally not giving anyone a pass. Those who have oppressed gay folk, criminalized "gay behavior" are actively violating the GR ON THAT POINT. When Western Christians actively supported slavery and oppressed women and gay folk, THEY WERE WRONG and violating the GR because they literally took actions that caused literal, observable harm.
When Muslim (and some Christian) places/authorities today imprison and harm gay folk or women, they ARE WRONG and violating the GR ON THAT POINT because they are literally causing harm.
I'm literally not giving a pass. I'm saying that these Muslim nations and those Christians ALL AFFIRMED the GR... and they got it wrong on these areas. In the past, I got the GR wrong on gay folk marrying. It doesn't mean that I didn't affirm the GR, just that I didn't fully embrace it to the extent that I should have.
Do you understand the difference?
I’m not willing to simply brush it off as a mistake.
I can't stress enough how very serious these "mistakes" are. When Christians and Muslims and others, today and in the past, have failed to live up to the GR/Do No Harm criteria, PEOPLE DIED and were oppressed. THIS IS A HORROR. I'm not in any way brushing it off lightly. It was ATROCIOUS that Christians supported slavery and the oppression of women and gay folk.
Do you agree?
It was/is ATROCIOUS that Muslims and others have supported slavery and the oppression of women and gay folk.
I'm just saying that the reality is, they did/do so while at the same time affirming the GR as "the greatest commandment."
It's just acknowledging the flawed nature of humanity and human cultures to acknowledge that people sincerely did believe/affirm the GR while at the same time failing to fully support it/live it out.
I have done this in my own past with gay folk. My behavior (while supporting the GR and believing what I was saying and believing "out of love for the sinner") was atrocious. Lord have mercy on me! And no, I didn't beat up or gossip or in any way physically cause harm to gay folk, but my antipathy towards their "causes" and their desire to simply be able to live freely and marry freely DID cause harm and contribute to oppression. AND I believed the GR.
Have you never failed to live up to the GR?
Acknowledging reality is not the same as giving a pass to the oppression done. It's just recognizing reality.
Except you only offer of “proof” was your “nearly universal” claim that you’ve never quantified or proven.
There’s an equally rational, science based, argument that suggests that “survival of the fittest” (a handy catchphrase for a much more diverse and nuanced worldview) is the highest purpose of all living things. Why is your appeal to numbers more credible than their appeal to science?
I’m not necessarily suggesting anything in its place. Instead I’m pointing out some other alternatives and wondering how you’ll defend against science?
I’ve pointed out the specific instance, you’ve just ignored it. The facts are that the current last comment of your blog contains lies, as do your claims that I didn’t answer your question. So, it’s time to see if your actions match your words. It’s clear that they haven’t up until this point, we’ll see how you handle it from here on out.
I’m guessing that most relatively normal,well adjusted adults are capable of surviving mockery without harm. But that’s just me.
People from the privileged classes and from majority classes ARE able to withstand mocking more easily than historically oppressed groups. So, to a large degree, yes, it is just you and privileged folks in general. But for historically oppressed people, it's not so simple a matter of saying "I'll just laugh it off... SURE, they left a burning cross on my yard, or left a noose in my locker... but it's all in good fun. I'll just ignore the historic reality of our literal oppression with a simple little chuckle. Those KKK guys are SUCH kidders!"
Context matters, it seems to me (and I would suggest that research supports this).
I’d ask you for your objective proof about gays
No idea what you're referring to here. No context, just a vague charge or something.
So, again, I'd ask you: What are you proposing in lieu of the GR/Do No Harm criterion?
Instead I’m pointing out some other alternatives and wondering how you’ll defend against science?
You keep bringing this up, as if you've proven that a majority of scientists are affirming "Survival of the fittest" as our moral code.
IF that is your claim, I don't believe you are factually correct. You certainly haven't proven it.
Can you prove that SCIENCE or even a majority of scientists reject out of hand the GR/Do No Harm criterion for morality?
I don't think you can. Can you admit that you can't?
Craig... The facts are that the current last comment of your blog contains lies
? My LITERAL last comment on my blog is No Thanks. What is the lie in that?
The paragraph before my last comment was...
2. What's the alternative? One group's particular opinions about what God (or gods) think is moral? Another, more limited, measure that is not objectively provable?
What in those questions "contains lies..."? Or are you referring to something else?
This is part of the problem with these big sprawling "conversations" where you don't provide direct, clear responses to questions is much of the time, I literally don't know what you're speaking about or what "lies" you think are there, since it's lacking any context or specifics.
Maybe answering questions directly and clearly, including referencing the literal line you're speaking of, would be beneficial?
I suspect that since you haven’t followed up on what I’ve provided you, and that since you don’t recognize one of the most famous quotes on the subject (and your previous unwillingness to deal with evidence against you), that it really doesn’t matter whether I do do or not. The fact that you’re even arguing against the default position of much of the science establishment says plenty.
You act as if some sort of vague appeal to unquantified numbers gets you off the hook.
1. Who am I to try to force them. If they can’t be persuaded, then all I can do is show them the love and respect due to anyone created in God’s image, and trust that God will work.
2. Unless you can define “prove”, and apply the same definition to your claims, this is a ridiculous attempt to change the subject.
3. Your first sentence “As a point of fact..,”, is clearly and demonstrably a claim of fact. If you’re going to make claims of fact, you’ll need to prove them to be factual.
4. No.
5. I’m people choose different values from those of God, that’s their choice. I can’t or won’t try to force people to live according to God’s laws.
Your problem with #5 is your mistaken notion that Christians have some desire to arbitrarily force people to live by a specific set of rules, and nothing else.
Ok, you just argued against your moral code. Or, you’ve left yourself a huge “nearly universal” loophole that you can leave undefined and hide behind. You’ve argued that you “believe” morality is objective/universal, you’ve advanced a moral code based on “near universal”, yet you can’t affirm that you believe in your own moral code as the universal best option.
If I accept the scientific worldview, I’d say 1001 less people to compete with and I’d go on my way.
Your problem is that you’ve acknowledged that it would be immoral for you to rape the girl, which means that at least 1000 people would die. If your GR lets you live with at least 1001 dead bodies, then that’s on you. Even with all that you likely haven’t saved the girl from rape.
If I was a pragmatist or a utilitarian, and consistent, I’d rape the girl and save the majority (just like values clarification in school). I could even argue that I’d be gentle and minimize her trauma and that she would understand (at some point) that she’d saved 1000 people through her suffering.
As a Christian I’d offer myself up in exchange for all 101 of them. Or I’d attempt to free everyone by whatever means necessary. I’d be willing to lay down my life in an attempt to save others.
Would it be a moral good? Under the scientific/materialistic/Darwinian worldview, yes.
Under your vague moral code, who knows.
Under a pragmatic/utilitarian worldview, yes ( most good, most people).
As a Christian, no. Neither taping one, or killing 1000 is a moral good. Killing those who were threatening, would be though.
I’m still not proposing anything, because you haven’t proven your code superior to the other options.
Two alternatives.
Utilitarian/pragmatic
Survival of the fittest/scientific/materialistic
These are both reasonable, acceptable, and supported by evidence. Why is yours objectively better?
Hint, when you demand that I do something I haven’t said I would do, I’m not going to jump through your hoops just to humor you. I’m this case I’ve offered you reasonable/rational alternatives.
Actually you’ve fallen back of YOUR common sense and YOUR reason, without demonstrating why yours is objectively better than the alternatives nor offering proof beyond an appeal to numbers.
I’ve pointed out both the flaws with your Declaration example, and that you can’t remove those terms from the context of the Scottish Common Sense Realism worldview. Hint, “common sense” meant something different that it does today. But if you’d like to unpack that, and deal with my previous points, feel free.
Your semantic games are tiresome, and you continually making assumptions about me is tiring and annoying. Given that, I see no reason to dignity then with more time.
Lie #1. “A comment I posted on Craig's place that I'll put here, in case it doesn't make it to his (my comments don't always make it there... it's sort of hit and miss).”
The only times your comments don’t make it is in the case of a rare accident where I hit delete instead of publish. Whenever it happens, I immediately comment explaining what happened and asking you to post again. Technically this is “true”, you’ve just worded it in a way that is incredibly misleading. Further, I suspect if I checked the time stamp, this comment probably appeared after I called you on it. This is what happens when you deny others the same freedom you get here. I haven’t looked at your blog in quite some time.
Lie #2. “He claims that two immoral women cannot be trusted.”
Lie #3. “But this guy gets Craig’s vote to lead the country:”
Lie #4. “ I will delete you, as well, IF you don't answer the questions put to you.”
As long as you let the lies stand, I guess that tells me how serious you are at living up to your own code.
Finally.
Simply asserting that we “ought” to do something is neither proof, nor authoritative.
The question you keep failing to adequately answer is. Why?
Craig... "The question you keep failing to adequately answer is. Why?"
Well, while it's not provable, I think the founders had the right idea. It IS self-evident.
If you want to argue against following the Golden Rule and Do no harm as a measure of morality, and you don't think it's self-evident, you're welcome to do so. If you're not arguing against what is clearly self-evident, then I reckon we agree. Do we agree?
I think you have said that following the golden rule is not self-evident and recognizing human rights for all people is not self-evident. If you want to make that argument, that's fine with me.
I would just ask what would you suggest in its place?
You have suggested two humanistic theories, but I suspect you do not affirm those as viable alternatives. If you want to argue utilitarianism is better than Do no harm and GR, go ahead and do so. But first, please answer, do you truly think it's a better option? I don't think you do.
In other words, if no one HERE is arguing that these two humanist theories are a better alternative than the Golden Rule and Do no harm, then I'm not going to argue against something that no one is arguing for here. Why not? First of all because I do not know that many people are seriously arguing this as better Alternatives. It may be the case, but I'm not aware of it is being anyting widespread or common. Secondly, I don't know that I trust your ability to explain the theory that you don't really believe in and do justice. No offense to you, just a few don't really believe in these theories then maybe you don't know them very well. I'd rather talk with the people who are actually making the argument. I hope you can understand.
As to my supposed false claim, which you acknowledged is factually true, I would just respond that I did not claim there was anything nefarious in them getting deleted. I know you've said you accidentally delete comments sometimes. I wasn't suggesting anything else. I was just noting the reality that they sometimes do not make it on there. No accusation involved, just a statement of reality.
Re: Alleged lies...
Lie #2. “He claims that two immoral women cannot be trusted.”
Lie #3. “But this guy gets Craig’s vote to lead the country:”
Lie #4. “ I will delete you, as well, IF you don't answer the questions put to you.”
The first two are comments between you and Feodor. Believe it or not, I don't hang on your all's conversations so I don't know who's telling the truth or that these ARE lies. You HAVE said that you are considering voting for the perverted lying con man (for reasons that escape me, given that you acknowledge he is a perverted lying con man... I think).
I do give Feodor some leeway to make comments to you and others who won't print his comments, just to give him a place to make his comments freely. But I don't really follow his conversations with you all to any degree... especially once it's reached this level of back and forth between you all. If you want to take HIM up on any false claims, feel free to do so. I'd be glad to move your all's conversations off of my blog and back on to yours. But I honestly am not following the comments between you so I have no way of knowing if these are false claims or not. What do you suggest I do?
The last comment is, I believe MY comment promising to delete you if you don't answer questions put to you. That's not a lie, it's what I promised and have followed up on.
If that's your story, then that's it. If you think imprecise and misleading, who am I to claim your wrong.
Yet you allow the first two to live at your blog, unremarked on and protected. I guess you could kind of make the excuse that you don't care enough about your blog to monitor the contents or that you allow him to lie for some strange reason, but IF as you claim "lies cause harm" and you protect and countenance lies on your blog, then your simply enabling someone who (by your own definition) causes harm.
The problem with your excuse about lie #4, is that by the time you made that comment, I'd already answered your question at lease three times, at least two of those times were using the rubric you demanded I use.
You know, you had a choice with this test. You could have lived up to your moral code and deleted/edited the comments to remove even the appearance of falsehood. Instead you hide behind semantic games, excuses, and more lies.
This one exchanged has given me more information about your "moral code" than the dozens of comments you've posted.
Just to be clear, you are the one claiming that lies cause harm, I'm just trying to determine if you will live up the the moral code you claim to follow.
Craig, you keep saying things like... Under your vague moral code, who knows.
My/Jesus' moral code of the GR/Do No Harm is IMPERFECT that it relies upon infallible human beings to implement it and thus, will be as infallible as we humans are, but do you have a LESS vague moral code you're offering in its place?
I have continually freely acknowledged that any moral code, including the GR one, is imperfect as long as it's implemented by imperfect human beings... All I'm saying is that I think the GR/DNH criteria is the most reasonable, most obvious, most universally applicable and LEAST vague option out there, at least that I'm aware of.
IF you have a less vague, more reasonable and clear option, I'd love to hear it.
If you don't, then all I'm left with is the assumption that you can't think of anything else better than what Jesus said (and reason and others agree with): Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
Again, thanks for crediting me for Jesus' words, but I really can't take the credit.
Do you recall the context of Jesus (again, NOT MY) teaching? In Matthew, it's in the SOTM, where Jesus is talking about morality and moral codes and says...
“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
He's saying, "Don't you know NOT to give your children a stone when they need bread? NOT to give them a dangerous snake when they want food? (DO NO HARM). Rather," he says, "Do to others as you would have them do to you" and he concludes with...
"FOR THIS SUMS UP THE LAW."
JESUS said that the GR sums up the notion of morality. HOW do we know how to do good things? THE GR. DO NO HARM. Do what you'd like others to do to you.
If Jesus thinks that this is a good summation/short explanation of morality, why is it not good enough for you? Or is it?
What do you think is a better alternative?
Seriously, unless you've got some facts, evidence, data, or something more than simply repeating it's "nearly universal" in various ways. I'd suggest that you move on.
I think your trying to minimize how Sharia law treats homosexuals was the last straw. Anytime you try to excuse capital punishment for gays and apostates as just a "mistake" by people who really, truly "believe" the GR, while making excuses for your own propagation of others lies, are the final two straws.
I had a long response that disappeared when I tried to post it, but the upshot was it's not about following rules imposed by humans, it's about loving God enough to love and value those who are created in His image as much as He does.
You don't lie (or condone lies) about someone who has intrinsic, inherent, transcendent value as someone created in the very image of God.
I guess you could kind of make the excuse that you don't care enough about your blog to monitor the contents or that you allow him to lie for some strange reason
I do not "ALLOW" him to lie. I don't KNOW if he's lying or not, nor do I know if you're lying or not... not in the conversations that you all are having between yourselves.
How would I know? Should I block all comments you make because you MIGHT be lying, and block all the comments he makes because he MIGHT be lying?
Look, I am glad to admit allowing him to have conversations between you all (that you all don't allow at your blogs) at my blog is an imperfect solution. The easiest thing would be to allow him to comment at your blog and then you could deal with your conversations.
But I barely have time to keep up with our conversations, much less to try to police/monitor your conversations.
How is that unreasonable to leave your conversations to you all?
The problem with your excuse about lie #4
It's literally not an excuse. It's literally not a lie. It was a promise that IF you don't answer DIRECTLY the questions put to you, then you will be deleted. How is a promise a lie?
I didn't say you did or didn't answer my questions. I said that if you didn't, THEN it would be deleted.
To your point, you literally did not answer them DIRECTLY and in a clear manner. You used the sort of vague and "quotation mark" comments that made it seem less clear. At least to me.
Look, you know you have made comments that I have repeatedly told you are not clear or direct answers. You may THINK they are clear TO YOU, but I've let you know that they are not clear to me. Given that, don't you think the better thing to do would be to be more direct and clear?
THE GR IS FOUND UNIVERSALLY in all the major religions. THAT is the fact claim and it IS a fact.
I do not get into the heads of individual believers to try to guess if they REALLY REALLY mean it when they say they believe the GR. I'm just acknowledging that it's part of their tradition. I have NO REASON to doubt that they don't really believe it.
Nor have I seen you provide any data that would give me pause to make me think they don't really believe it.
Between my job and being in the middle of selling my house AND dealing with plmedical appointments, so much transpires on which I would love to comment. Alas...
But at present I am able to address one egregious lie... that being Lie #2. Indeed, it presents multiple lies in one false statement.
1. It refers to an exchange between feo and me.
2. It misrepresents what was said by me as regards the point I was making.
3. Given Dan's pearl clutching, vapors suffering reaction to my appropriate and factual word choices, Dan absolutely read enough of the exchange to know that Craig was not in any way involved.
Let's see Dan tap dance his way around just those three points.
I think your trying to minimize how Sharia law treats homosexuals was the last straw. Anytime you try to excuse capital punishment for gays and apostates as just a "mistake" by people who really, truly "believe" the GR
Do you recognize how dubiously gay folk would likely view such a comment coming from a conservative Christian? i can hear them saying, "Oh, you're concerned about Muslims killing and jailing us because their religion teaches them it's okay to oppress and kill gay folk... BUT, you're from the MUCH more progressive religion who's God 'only' teaches them that it's okay to deny gay folk the right to marry, to adopt, to be protected from discrimination? Thanks for that small bit of progress, but if you're merely wanting to offer us a less violent oppression and demonization, just keep your concern until such time as you're prepared to actually stand with us in support of our human rights."
Oppression-lite is still oppression.
Again, that I recognize that throughout history, Christians and Muslims and others have supported all manner of oppressive/anti-human rights attitudes while at the same time professing a belief in the GR.
But tell me: Do you have some method of moral reasoning that will be more productive in providing protection of gay folk from religious zealots who'd harass and oppress them, I'm very open to hearing it.
From all I can tell, however, you don't have anything better as a moral criterion than Jesus' GR.
"For this sums up the law." Indeed.
I’ve addressed the “self evident” problem in the original post. If you’re going to ignore it that’s fine, just don’t pretend that it hasn’t been addressed.
I’m sorry you don’t understand or engage in supporting your claims. You’ve made a claim, I’ve offered two alternatives, it’s your job to defend your claim, not mine.
And still minimizing the fact that Muslims kill gays and apostates, but they just love the GR.
Muslim response to gays, “You’re gay, then we’ll have to kill you.” “Oh if you think you can escape by leaving Islam, we’ll kill you for that as well.”
Christians responding to gays, “Homosexual activity is a sin, but God loves you and wants you to repent.”
Yes, Christianity is much more oppressive. The fact that you are so intent on comparing repentance to capital punishment makes me wonder what it is that makes you so unwilling to be honest about you Islam. I get that honesty on your blog isn’t important, but what’s your obsession with letting Muslims off the hook?
Context. When you mentioned the context of the GR, you left out the most important and relevant piece of context. It doesn’t surprise me that you did, but you did anyway.
“What do you think is a better alternative?”
Just so you’ll quit asking this question and to protect myself from more lies. I will answer this question as soon as you demonstrate what’s wrong with the two rational science based alternative I’ve offered. So, stop asking until you prove your claims.
Your obsession with excusing yourself and others from lying at your blog, tells me how seriously you that this moral code you’re trying to fob off. I literally copy pasted the exact rubric you demanded I use, including your punctuation, and you deleted it and lied about it. I’m sorry that your so committed to protecting the lies at your blog.
Maybe someone for whom extending grace was important, someone who wanted to treat people as they want to be treated, would humble themselves and do the right thing and apologize.
Instead, you’re telling me that it’s ok to treat you the way you treat me. It’s not my nature, but I can delete your comments and lie about them if that’s moral.
Art,
As we’re seeing Dan has very little interest in doing anything to promote honesty on the part of his groupie. It just doesn’t matter to him. Honesty and truth are casualties at his blog, it’s why I rarely read it and other than one specific question, haven’t commented there in ages.
Craig... The fact that you are so intent on comparing repentance to capital punishment makes me wonder what it is that makes you so unwilling to be honest about you Islam.
I'm not comparing repentance to capital punishment. I'm comparing the oppression of denying rights to gay folk by Christians (which ranges from wanting to see it re-criminalized - as it used to be here in the US - to not allowing gay folk to marry, to not allowing gay folk to adopt, to not allowing human rights protections or basic civil liberties protections to gay folk) to the oppression found in SOME other nations where the oppression is more overt and harmful (imprisonment, death, etc). BOTH forms of oppression are oppression. That's all I'm saying. And ALL of it is harmful and therefore wrong.
But I'm not willing to guess that Christian conservatives don't really support GR when they support oppressive behavior towards gay folk nor am I saying that Muslims and Christians in other nations who support ever MORE oppressive behavior don't really support GR. Just that they all are failing miserably to support the GR in these areas. What is difficult to understand about that?
Again, have you EVER failed to live up to the GR and, if so, did that mean you rejected it out of hand? Or merely that you failed to live up to it in some cases, while still wanting to affirm the GR?
I will answer this question as soon as you demonstrate what’s wrong with the two rational science based alternative I’ve offered. So, stop asking until you prove your claims.
Perhaps you missed where I said that NONE OF US can objectively prove our opinions about criteria for understanding morality. But I CAN prove that behavior that causes harm CAUSES HARM and reaffirm the widespread human belief that we ought not cause harm. Why? Because NONE OF US want harm to be inflicted upon us or our loved ones. We recognize that when someone assaults a loved one of ours for no reason, that this is a great moral wrong. It is self-evident.
Now, I GET that this is not objective proof, but again, we have NO OBJECTIVE PROOF to authoritatively demonstrate ANY criteria is authoritatively THE RIGHT criteria. But reasonable people around the world throughout history have agreed that we ought not do to others that which we wouldn't want done to us.
Are you arguing for moral anarchy, where, since we can't authoritatively objectively prove a criteria for morality, that we MUST affirm that there IS NO NEED for moral codes?
If not, then present what you think is a better alternative.
You don't have anything, Craig. You don't have a better alternative. We can all see that.
I personally would LOVE to see you come up with a better alternative, because I love moral behavior and would love to see an improvement around matters of oppression and harm to innocents. PLEASE, present your better alternative IF YOU HAVE IT.
If you don't (and you don't), then reasonable people can see that and say, well, yes, the GR/Do No Harm probably IS the best criteria we have for morality because of its self evident nature. We GET that it's imperfect and not universally self evident, but it's the best we have.
Until you have something more weighty than nothing, I think this conversation is complete.
Thanks.
While I'm waiting to see if you can actually try to provide something helpful like a better alternative to the GR, here are a couple more quick responses....
Craig... "you’re telling me that it’s ok to treat you the way you treat me. It’s not my nature, but I can delete your comments and lie about them if that’s moral."
You do recognize, don't you, that that's literally not how the Golden Rule works? It's not, do unto others as I have perceived them having done to me. Right?
Craig... "I literally copy pasted the exact rubric you demanded I use, including your punctuation, and you deleted it and lied about it."
Is factual that I deleted my own comment that you put in quotation marks. Is not factual that I lied about it. The claim itself that you're making is a false claim. I'm sure perhaps that you are misunderstanding the situation and for some reason it seems like I made a false claim. But it literally did not happen. Go back and re-read what's there, you are factually mistaken. Just FYI.
Where in scripture does it teach that “God doesn’t allow gay folks to marry, to adopt, and to be free from discrimination.”?
Those are political issues, not moral or religious. Essentially you’re saying that people who don’t agree with your politics are immoral.
You’re kind of about one thing, although I already said this, that the two greatest commandments do sum up the law.
It’s good to see you acknowledging the existence of these rules.
“You HAVE said that you are considering voting for the perverted lying con man”
Yes I have, yet I didn’t in 2016, I didn’t in the 2020 primary, and I haven’t in the 2020 general. So on the face of it to say that Trump “gets” my vote is a completely false statement.
But, feel free to make excuses.
Craig... acknowledge rules in the Bible...
I have always been quite clear that there are rules found within the Bible. Just that it's not a rule book.
“Craig... "The question you keep failing to adequately answer is. Why?"
Well, while it's not provable, I think the founders had the right idea. It IS self-evident.“
The question that you still haven’t answered is “Why?”.
I suspect I know, but I’ll just wait for you to answer or watch you continue to dodge.
“ personally would LOVE to see you come up with a better alternative, because I love moral behavior”
Yet, the lies are still at your blog.
Why? Because causing harm hurts and no one wants that. That's why. Do you disagree with the reasoning? Do you think there's some better measure?
The answer is clear. You have nothing. The question is, why you won't admit it?
You keep coming back to wanting me to prove your claim wrong, or provide something better.
1. That’s not how it works. If you make a claim, you need to demonstrate that your claim is correct.
2. I’ve offered you two alternatives and you haven’t even attempted to demonstrate that they are inferior to your moral code. You haven’t dealt with the scientific data, or engaged with what’s been offered.
So, I’m forced to repeat. Defend your claim against the two options I’ve provided. Demonstrate the clear superiority of your rule.
“denying rights to gay folks by Christians”
1. What rights have gay folks been denied?
2. Are you suggesting that these political decisions have been enacted 100% by Christians?
No, I’m not arguing for moral anarchy. I’ve provided you with 2 alternatives in this thread that are other options for a moral code. These options are founded in a scientific/naturalistic worldview and are being advocated as scientific truth.
The third alternative, which you’ve also never debunked, is the sociological construct which claims that morality is defined by individual societies/groups/families/nations and that it is changeable depending on the circumstances.
You haven’t ever demonstrated the problems with theses three, yet you’ve announced that your rule is superior.
I’ve noticed that your argument could be rephrased as “All these religions acknowledge the GR, but define it and live it out differently.
If you really want to argue that FGM, capital punishment for apostasy and homosexual, entire groups of people who are labeled unclean/outcasts/infidels, are simply “mistakes”, go for it.
Does the Muslim version of the GR apply to infidels? Does the Hindu version apply to the Dalits in the same way it applies to the Brahmins?
Again, if you’re not going to engage with the three alternatives I’ve given you I can’t help that, but until you deal with the alternatives on the table, I’m not giving you more options to ignore.
“You do recognize, don't you, that that's literally not how the Golden Rule works? It's not, do unto others as I have perceived them having done to me. Right?”
I’m not talking about perception, but the reality of how you treat others.
“Is factual that I deleted my own comment that you put in quotation marks. Is not factual that I lied about it. The claim itself that you're making is a false claim. I'm sure perhaps that you are misunderstanding the situation and for some reason it seems like I made a false claim. But it literally did not happen. Go back and re-read what's there, you are factually mistaken. Just FYI.”
You deleted at least two comments of mine where I said exactly what you demanded I say in answer to your question. You did this after I clearly and succinctly answered your question the first time I asked.
Look, I know it’s hard for you to admit that you’ve made a mistake and that you could be wrong. But the fact that you’re in the middle of demanding that the GR is the best moral code available, while defending your immoral (according to the GR, your standard), is damn funny.
The fact that Art pointed out additional lies for you to ignore is just icing on the cake.
If I was petty enough to behave like you, I’d do the following.
I’d demand that you delete or retract all of the lies and false claims.
I’d demand an apology
I’d post at least one expletive filled rant
I’d delete all of your comments until I got my way, and mischaracterize them after they were deleted.
But, instead I’ll continue to allow your comments to post freely (despite your insinuations), and let your own attempts to justify your immorality stand.
In other words, I’ll extend you the grace you routinely deny others.
A couple of final thoughts.
For someone who selectively loves things like science and data, your unwillingness to even research the scientifically supported, data driven options I've suggested, seems strange.
Your flexibility as to the nature and applicability of Biblical rules is quite impressive.
I'm especially impressed by your ability to turn virtually every comment thread into a discussion of gay marriage. It's almost like it's the one topic that you are kind of obsessed with.
Craig... "That’s not how it works. If you make a claim, you need to demonstrate that your claim is correct..."
This is precisely how it works when one is making a reasoned opinion claim.
If one is making a fact claim, then one has to support it. On matters where there is no way to objectively prove the facts, one can make a reasoned opinion claim. In that case, if someone disagrees with that reasoned claim, they can say so.
Do you disagree with the reasoned claim that GR / Do no harm is the best, most consistently useful and appropriate criterion we have for assessing moral behaviors?
If you want to disagree with that opinion, then please do so. And then offer your hunch about what is a better alternative.
Again, I'm not making a fact claim because it's not provable. I'm offering a reasoned opinion.
Do you disagree with my opinion? Feel free. At the same time, feel free to say what you think is the better alternative in your opinion. That is how it works on matters of opinion.
Dan,
I apologize. Something went wrong and Blogger wouldn't let your last short comment post. I believe it was simply you asking the same questions I've explained to you that I'll answer after you demonstrate why your moral code is superior to the two I've offered in this post and the one I've offered elsewhere.
As usual, when I make a mistake and accidentally delete your comment (or something out of my control does), I apologize and ask that you re submit the comment and I will promptly post it.
As to your questions, I'll say this.
Science tells us the "Survival of the fittest" and "Nature is red in tooth and claw." are statements that are objectively true and supported by data and evidence. If those two statements are true (and an observation of nature and human history suggests that there is some truth there), then those statements do constitute a moral code. How does one harmonize your moral code with the moral code put forth by science? Or how is yours superior and demonstrated by the evidence.
If altruism (the GR) is actually done with selfish motives, then is it really truly altruism?
I apologize. Your comment didn't disappear, I just didn't scroll up far enough to see it, and I didn't scroll down far enough in the published comments screen either.
I apologize for my mistake.
"Why? Because causing harm hurts and no one wants that. That's why."
So the underlying Truth behind your moral code is "no one wants to be hurt"? Please explain why "being hurt" is always bad? You still haven't explained why not hurting others is a better moral code than advancing one's own self interest and the furtherance of one's genetic line. If your are actually suggesting that "it hurts" is the foundation for morality, then surgery is immoral. Punishment for crimes is immoral. Sports are immoral. Again, I understand that you don't want to ground your moral code in anything that even hints of God, but come on, this is the best you have.
"Do you disagree with the reasoning? Do you think there's some better measure?"
I'll gladly answer these after you demonstrate why your moral code is better than the 3 I've offered. Or demonstrate the fatal flaws in those options and the underlying scientific evidence.
"The answer is clear. You have nothing. The question is, why you won't admit it?"
This is just one more lie. One more example of you advocating a moral code you don't live up to.
"This is precisely how it works when one is making a reasoned opinion claim. "
Then by all means do so. Demonstrate the superiority of your "opinion" claim to the alternatives affirmed by science.
To be fair, your original claim was that "we should be able to draw reasonable moral lines" against certain things. Therefore IF your are claiming that certain behaviors ALWAYS (in all circumstances, times, and places) cross "moral lines", then your original claim is a claim of fact. Further, if you are not suggesting that these behaviors ALWAYS cross "moral lines", then your entire claim becomes self refuting.
So. let's start by clarifying your first claim. Are certain behaviors such that engaging in them ALWAYS crosses a "moral line"?
Your second claim was that the premise underlying your first claim is that the GR was "a near universal ruling about how to recognize moral/immoral behavior.", that isn't stated as if it's an opinion, it's stated as a fact. Further your support for this claim was that "is written (in one form or the other) in every world religion, and I am not aware of many serious philosophies apart from religions that would disagree with it."
Again, let's dig in a bit. If the GR is a "near universal ruling about how to recognize moral behavior" then doesn't that imply a "near universal" "moral line"?
Next your claim that "every world religion" recognizes the GR as this "near universal" "moral line" also appears to be a claim of fact (you even "cited" a source, although I suspect they "every" is inaccurate).
Finally, I'd suspect that Communism, Nazism, Materialism, Atheism, nihilism, and a few other "serious philosophies", wouldn't agree with you either. If your claim that you're "not aware" of these philosophies, then that seems a significant problem of ignorance.
So what were left with is (after an extended period of attempts to do otherwise) you admitting that it's merely your opinion and that you won't defend or compare your opinion to the three alternatives I've offered as alternatives. If you're not willing to explore the claims of science and the academy, and test your opinions against what they claim are facts, that's not my problem. You say that these things can't be proven, yet science insists that they can, yet you won't even acknowledge the existence of anything to compete with your mere opinion.
I've said it elsewhere, and been ignored, but I think the problem with your underlying worldview is that you are focusing on morality as a set of rules imposed or agreed on by a majority. As long as you exclude the possibility of God from the discussion, you're probably right that your opinion is reasonable.
I'll leave you with one of the most glaring holes in your attempt to ground morality outside of God. When you used the Declaration of Independence to ground your claims, you left out or ignored a few things.
"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,"
Let's start with the fact that this declaration was going to cause "harm" to Great Britain. Therefore, by your own standards, it's immoral.
"and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,"
This is the first time they do this. They ground their actions (moral justification) on "THE LAWS OF NATURE AND NATURE"S GOD". Given the religious makeup of the delegates, it's completely reasonable to assume that they got their concept of God from the Jewish/Christian scripture.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Again they ground their moral code/justification to harm others in God.
I'm not going to get side tracked into a pointless discussion of the specific beliefs of specific founders, but I'll say this. Unless you can prove conclusively that they got their concept for God and His attributes from any source other than the Jewish/Christian scripture and tradition, don't even bother to dispute this. It's further off topic and not relevant to the point.
(If you try to go there in this post, I will edit your comments before you post them. If you insist of pursuing this diversion, either put it in a post at your blog and guarantee me that you won't delete my comments or ask me to do a post here where you'll be free to comment without restriction.)
To conclude, the one relatively specific example of grounding your moral code that you gave, ignored the indisputable fact that they grounded the document in God. I'll be honest, when your "silver bullet" contradicts a significant part of your point (that the GR is not grounded in the Judeo/Christian God) it's not a good look. Being even more honest, once you jumped on the Jesus bandwagon around this, you decided to take the GR out of context in an attempt to divorce it from God.
These are strange behaviors for someone who calls themselves Christian.
"I surely wish God Almighty would give the Children of Israel an Isaiah, the Christians a St. Paul, and the Sons of Ishmael a peep at the Golden Rule."
I guess this is one democrat who disagrees with you.
"On what rationed consistent basis would we choose one religious group (or, some subsets of one religious group, since religions often don't agree with each other even within one religion) to be the authorities on what is and isn't moral?"
First, insofar as one excludes those like Dan who rejects aspects of clearly revealed truths from Scripture due to their inconvenience, most "subsets" of religious groups agree on the essentials. I have to admit I'm assuming here on what occurs in religions not Christian, but as it's true of Christians, I see no reason why that wouldn't be generally true of other religions as well.
With that in mind, the "rationed consistent basis" for choosing on religious group (is this the same as choosing a religion?) would be the basis of evidence for the truth claims of any religion. With that as the standard for judging, there is no religion that has the wealth of evidence that supports the truth claims of Christianity. For example, on the issue of manuscript evidence alone, no religion comes within a galaxy of the quantity of manuscript evidence Christianity has. Indeed, there's not even a close second regarding that which most people take for granted, such as any other non-religious ancient figure (such as Julius Caesar).
With all that exists to support the notion that Christianity is true and factual, most who reject it do so in spite of all that exists, not because they have an actual basis of their own for doing so and/or for choosing some other belief system. Indeed, in my experience, it seems clear that many, if not most, who never really investigated the Christian faith of their parents choose other religions (or none at all) because the others have personal appeal rather than a real evidential basis for doing so.
Thus, Scripture is THE source of determining what morality is. That some might dicker over one point or another doesn't mitigate this reality. Differences of opinion doesn't mean one opinion isn't actually true while the rest are not.
"Of course living the golden rule is beneficial for everyone, of course it is mutually beneficial, to the degree that it has lived out."
I'm sure many believe this, but it isn't anything more than subjective opinion. The reason this is true is because what you see as beneficial might not be a shared belief by another...or even by anyone BUT you. Take theft. While the thief might not want anyone to steal from him, he finds it beneficial to steal from others. Selfish people think only of what benefits themselves and what benefits others is of no concern to them. Even if they employ the GR to some extent, it can be because they see the benefit to themselves and where no self-benefit is evident, the GR isn't practiced.
Further, what constitutes a benefit is subjective as well. So even if everyone were to abide the letter of the Rule, it wouldn't necessarily result in everyone benefiting at all given "benefit" is defined differently by one person versus the next.
And of course, "to the degree that it has lived out" is the definitive aspect. In a fallen world, it will never be lived out by enough to truly gauge it's ultimate value. To the extent that Christ taught the concept, it doesn't hinge on total compliance, as every teaching that I can think of is, in reality, Christ speaking to the individual without regard to what others do or how they live or what they believe.
"I'm specifically and literally NOT saying "Here is a rule we should follow because it is in a religious book (or multiple religious books)" I'm saying that is NOT the reason to set up rules/understand morality.
I'm saying that Do No Harm/GR is reasonable BECAUSE it is measurable and rational REGARDLESS of whether you adhere to a given religious book or not. We should embrace it because it's reasonable and measurable and observable. It's easy to understand it, at least on the face of it."
I'm sure it pleases the God in whom you pretend to believe and put faith to know that His will isn't good enough for you. "Oh, I'm just the Supreme Being who created all things and all people. But you go ahead and subordinate my opinion to your notion of 'rational'." How sad.
"I do agree that false claims cause harm. I'm not aware of places where I fail to live up to the rule."
How about your ongoing claim that Craig or I support Trump's sexual immorality...that I support rape or any of the other heinous and obviously false charges for which you have absolutely no evidence or reason other than that I don't believe Trump should be removed from office nor denied a second term due to his great work as president? How big a list would you need? I could provide a sizable one without too much effort. But start with that one.
"I AFFIRM that a leader who daily passes on false claims is untrustworthy and unfit for office and would never get my vote."
That absolutely negates every left-wing politician, particularly those running for the Dem nomination. And you'll be lying to pretend you're unaware of any of the lies of the party you support eagerly.
"I suspect that you can't demonstrate that this is a widespread belief amongst scientists, which I believe is what you're trying to do here..."
If atheist scientists who espouse humanist explanations for creation assert belief in GR, then it conflicts with what they espouse scientifically. How do you resolve this conflict?
"In the context of a world with no way of objectively clarifying what is and isn't moral, this measure is a reasonable point we can, by and large, agree upon, even if imperfectly."
Why would any Christian have to agree upon any asserted definition of morality that isn't based on the Will of God? If you wish to assert the GR is the Will of God, there will be conflicts with how those of other faiths understand things like "harm" and what behaviors are acceptable to do unto others. Indeed, when we're taught to do ANYTHING by Christ, it is within the confines of His teachings, which are based on God's Will. Thus, what a muslim insists is moral behavior does not align with what Christ teaches.
More importantly, based on the above quote, what you're talking about is not morality, but a consensus opinion of what should or shouldn't be allowed between people everywhere. That is, consensus opinion, a vote, a numbers game that ignores the fact that some, perhaps many, do not agree. I wouldn't be morality that say those outsiders are wrong. It would be merely a majority rule situation that isn't any proof that what is decided is truly moral. It is only an agreement that certain behaviors will be so regarded as such by all who buy in. Not that they actually are.
"1. What of those people who don't believe in gods? Why should they heed what your god has allegedly said?"
The question is entirely irrelevant. It's either moral or it isn't. They're refusal to abide the One True God doesn't alter that in the least. But by the same token, why should anyone abide the GR or "do not harm" standard that you prefer? Without God being the Standard, it's only opinion with no greater basis that binds anyone to it. Pretty much the question that began this whole discussion.
"2. Can you prove that your god has called some things moral? No, you can't, not objectively."
Scripture IS reliable evidence that proves God's position on what is or isn't moral. That it serves you to pretend otherwise doesn't make it untrue. To go beyond this would require its own blog post at least. For now, I simply submit it to be a fact because a Christian can do no other.
"So, again, why would someone who doesn't believe you are understanding what God has said correctly OR who doesn't believe in your god adhere to your opinions about what God has said?"
For the first half of the question, make your case. AS regards most every issue on which we disagree, you have yet to make a compelling case that I've ever been wrong about what I insist is true. Nowadays, you don't even step up to the plate because you know you have no such case.
As to the second half, there will always be those who don't want to abide what they know is true. You, yourself, have spoken of God's Law being written on everyone's heart, so to pretend one can blow Him off on the pretext of non-belief doesn't work here.
"3. As a point of fact, GOD has not come down and said "HERE IS WHAT I CONSIDER MORAL...""
As a point of fact, He absolutely HAS done this. It was recorded in Scripture. When it serves you to do so, because you find the truth inconvenient to your worldly preferences, you play this game that we can't know for certain, and here that the record of His doing just that is merely the words of people who evidently just made shit up. It's another of your cheap rationalizations made in lieu of an intelligent argument. I think it's high time you cut the crap and just stop pretending you're in any way Christian (I've long since stopped buying it) and that your pretense of belief in God is just to further your worldly agenda. (That would also count as just another of your oft told lies.)
"4. Are you suggesting that people, in general, ought to heed what the humans who believe that God gave a certain set of rules... should other people and traditions accept those human beliefs as authoritative?"
If Craig's not, I am. Why wouldn't I? The truth is the truth and it is my hope that no one should perish (where have I heard that before?). The humans who believe that God gave a certain set of rules are right. Those that don't are wrong. God is real, He is sovereign and His Will be done.
"5. I assume you would answer NO to question 4. If so, and we don't have that authoritative voice to adhere to what some humans believe God said, what do we use in lieu of that human tradition's set of rules?"
Another lie. It's not "human tradition's set of rules". It's the Will of God. No true Christian would compromise in a way that contradicts that. Find a true Christian and ask.
Craig...my recent comments might be too long after the events that compelled them to provoke direct responses. That's OK as it's just the nature of my life at present that I can so easily be left behind. Yet I wish to put my three cents in (inflation). I have no doubt that Dan will embrace grace and ignore my responses because he's incapable of actually overcoming them and he doesn't want to give up what he wants to be true. If you'd prefer I just bite it and take up the cause on another topic on another post, let me know. I'm sure some of these notions will arise again sooner or later. There's just so much stupid stuff Dan says to which I'd enjoy responding.
Art,
I haven’t read all of your comments yet, but I want to say this.
If you look at what Dan has said, he’s removed anything outside of the material world from the realm of Truth. He’ll acknowledge that there is Truth out there in some generic, metaphysical sense, but not in any practical sense. He disguises it by saying that it’s out there, but we just can’t know it with certainty.
Given that, his refusal to engage with what science tells us about the morality of certain behaviors as well as his ignoring of history and what we observe is strange.
What he’s done is to eliminate the discussion. So even though the history of Christian thought has held that the claims of Christianity are objectively True, even though that worldview is the basis of modern science, he’s excluded it from consideration. Now, it’s not that he’s provided data, or evidence that’s conclusively proven this, he’s just kind of decreed that this is the case.
To be fair, he’s simply accepted the prevailing worldview that’s been growing for decades, so I’m not singling him out.
The problem for us is, it’s impossible to build the case for an alternative, comprehensive, Christian worldview on a blog. I’ve pointed him to some excellent resources in the past and he’s found various reasons to dismiss them without actually considering them.
It’s not him, it’s a society that’s elevated the physical realm to almost godhood, while relegating the metaphysical world to irrelevance.
It’s difficult to have these conversations because he’s insistent that his presuppositions are True, without having to prove them. Once the ground rules are laid that exclude certain things from being considered, regardless of the evidence, then there’s little point is having the discussion.
I’ve posted the exact quotes elsewhere, but there are scientists who’ve said something along this line.
“Even if there was absolutely zero evidence to support evolution, I would still be compelled to accept evolution as true.”
That’s similar to the mindset Dan demonstrates. When he says something like, “Well obviously XYZ can’t be proven objectively true.”.
Leaving aside the absurdity of declaring that something “can’t” be proven, and the fact that he’s making an exclusive claim of absolute certainty about objective truth, he’s simply expressing a presupposition.
It’s long and complex, and impossible to settle here.
Well, you've certainly addressed what my recent comments have been saying, though I've been addressing specific statements. I sort of accepted the possibility that, especially now that this thread has been supplanted to a more archival position with the addition of more recent posts, my comments are far less likely to draw a response, which itself is more often the case these days given Dan's cowardice and dishonesty. His constant "hyperventilations" over my manner are not in the least bit credible, especially considering his own belief that he's justified in using the foulest of language when it suits him. No. He's dodging, and just as Trump's reputation provides him the low hanging fruit he needs to avoid the heavy lifting of arguing against Trump's many successes, he throws the penalty flag unjustly over any comment he finds troublesome, not because it breaks any laws of civility or discourse.
Nonetheless, while I'm effectively banned again because I won't bow down to his demand for an apology for absolutely no true wrongdoing on my part, like you I'm left to respond either here or at my blog. He at least is more likely to engage here...such as that is..especially if you seem to concur with what I say. It's really too bad he has no spine to go with no integrity.
In any case, carrying on, knowing you've addressed some of these wacky things already:
"Because we ought not harm innocent people, we ought to do unto others as we'd have them do unto ourselves."
That may be true, but saying so doesn't do anything to provide an objective basis for believing it is. You're argument thus far is that it's wrong because it's wrong. Hardly persuasive.
"If I could save 1000 people by raping and shooting one 10 year old girl, I probably would not do it. If I DID do it, it would be immoral still."
This lame exercise, the type you find so compelling (it's really just tiresome and boring), doesn't move us toward an objective basis for morality, either. But since you again believe you're exposing something or someone, I'll respond. You'd be a horse's ass to allow the deaths of 1000 people if you faced the choice. It again suggests your belief in God and an everlasting existence in His Holy presence is a total sham. As a Christian faced with that choice as you've presented it, I would regard the suffering of the child to be in God's hands. As suggested, I would do all I could to make sure she suffered as little as possible during the rape...assuming I could even get myself aroused under the pressure of such a demand...and would try to make sure she didn't know the bullet was coming. The whole time I would be praying that God takes her into His embrace, thereby doing her the ultimate solid.
In the meantime, I would rely upon God's justice and mercy in knowing that my decision was indeed moral. YOU, in your pseudo-sanctimony would likely have condemned all 1000 plus the girl to a far worse fate. Nice going. How is that "moral" in your fantasy land? You've "done harm" to 1001 and one people, while I've "done harm" to one. Being force to hurt others is not immoral for the person so forced. That harm done is the sin of the person(s) doing the forcing. Thus, you prove again that your philosophy is horribly flawed and likely nothing more than an attempt to suggest flaws in our characters or positions so as to avoid having to adjust yours because you believe yourself infallible.
I have to insist again the reality that I continue to stand ready to adjust my thinking if someone can bring about a truly compelling argument presenting a superior perspective. In all the years of discourse, Dan hasn't come close to accomplishing that to any degree. I find that fascinating.
In summation then, we see that Craig has NO alternative that is better than GR/DNH and Marshal would like to suggest that the majority of the world "should" go along with people like him and defer to their opinions on matters of morality, rather than GR... but he has no basis to say this other than he thinks he's right.
I've settled on the imperfect but solid and reasonable GR/DNH measure. I haven't gone into a great deal of explanation of why it is better because it is, indeed, self evident and so clear that nearly anyone can see it, especially if they try to espouse an alternative. Almost certainly Craig agrees that it's better than the humanist models he suggests as potential alternatives. Nonetheless, soon, on my blog, I will spell out in more detail WHY the GR/DNH measure is self-evident and WHY it is the best alternative.
As to Craig's suggestion that it's "too hard and complex" to explain why some other model can't be given... I suspect (although he won't say directly) that Craig believes something similar to Marshal... that the world should defer to the modern conservative Christian opinions on what is and isn't moral, even though it's not objective and is shot full of problems. I suspect that Craig secretly thinks it IS objectively provable, but at the same time, recognizes he can't prove it so that leaves him remaining silent. Just my guess.
Here's the thing: If "take the conservative Christian opinions on morality as the best measure because they are objectively right" WAS something that could be objectively proven, then it would have been done. There would be website after website that lays out the "proof" that their hunches about what God thinks are objectively "right."
But that doesn't exist because the argument doesn't exist. It just doesn't. NOT because it's too hard for us to understand but simply because it does not exist in the real world. If it did, Craig could point me to it.
Marshal, for his part, says things like... It's not "human tradition's set of rules". It's the Will of God.
But of course, that is not the reality of it all. It is LITERALLY human opinion that they are correctly understanding God's Will, without error. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't (they aren't) but the opinion that they are IS an unproven opinion, not an objective fact. Just to be clear.
cont'd...
Craig and Marshal say things like... If atheist scientists who espouse humanist explanations for creation assert belief in GR, then it conflicts with what they espouse scientifically. How do you resolve this conflict?
But they appear to fail to understand scientists' positions. That Craig and Marshal fail to understand does not mean that scientists believe what Craig and Marshal appear to think that scientists believe, certainly as a group.
Marshal... I'm sure it pleases the God in whom you pretend to believe and put faith to know that His will isn't good enough for you.
I'd ask you both to think through things like this. That I disagree with YOUR OPINIONS about what God's will/opinion is does not mean that I don't think God's will "isn't good enough." I disagree with YOUR OPINIONS, not with God.
I hope you can argue in good faith about what is actually happen. It's not the case that I know that you all are right about God and disagree with God. I don't think that you all are right and think you mistakenly speak for God what God hasn't said. There's a difference.
With that, I think we've gone over sufficiently what should have been pretty obvious:
1. Morality can be tricky to figure out perfectly and we will and do make mistakes.
2. We have no objectively provable set of criteria about what makes actions moral or immoral.
3. I'd suggest that the vast majority of the world is fine with the GR/DNH measure as perhaps our best mutually understandable criteria and, at least in broad stripes, it's not that hard to understand and accept, EVEN IF we fail to live it out perfectly.
4. Craig and no one else has suggested anything that is objectively better or even apparently better.
5. Craig and no one else has offered an alternative here that they actually believe is better.
6. Lacking any better, more reasonable and usable alternative, I've settled on the GR/DNH measure until such time can offer a better alternative.
Thanks. I will be posting more on my blog.
Here's a helpful article does well-reasoned, making the case that harm is an objective measure of morality, because harm is, by definition, bad. Not sure if I would totally buy into that, but if any argument for Morality is objective, it seems like harm has the strongest case.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective%3famp
"What are you proposing in lieu of the GR/Do No Harm ruling as a test for morality for the world at large/the world beyond the circle of those who agree with you?"
The Will of God is perfect for the task. It stands as objective, that which is true regardless of our own existence and as an added bonus, results in no harm except to those who transgress. Unfortunately, people like you think liberty, as is promoted by both Christianity and the founders of this country, means a dismissal of morality if one finds it personally suitable to do so, or the subjective and self-serving invention of morality to avoid acknowledging one's desires may be outside the bounds of morality. It's a notoriously common practice of the "progressive" including those like yourself who try to claim the mantle of "Christian".
" IF a majority of the world supporting killing gay and trans children/young adults, then the majority of the world would have failed to live up to the GR/Do No Harm principle, objectively so. They may have offered reasons for the exception, but they still would have literally failed to live up to the reasonable, rational "DO NO HARM" measure, when they've advocated harm. Literally."
Uh...literally NOT! If that majority regarded certain sexual behaviors as worthy of capital punishment, then just as with any other crime, it is not immoral to execute that sentence upon them (nice that you again act the jackass by including children, but I'll ignore that willfully evil ploy---I would never favor the execution of children). By the way, in societies where certain sexual behaviors are more regulated, there is a tendency to see far fewer kids develop a belief they are either homosexual or of the opposite sex. Conversely, I can find evidence that kids exposed to the "liberal" notions espoused by the sexually immoral left result in more kids believing themselves homosexual or of the opposite sex. Such "tolerance" promotes the choice and vulnerable kids can follow the lead of the twisted adults if there aren't enough moral adults to prevent it. Thus, the demand for millstones in this and other western nations is exceedingly high.
In any case, one needs to establish that a behavior is NOT immoral before presuming to insist the punishment for that behavior is immoral. To do that one needs an objective basis which you have yet to provide.
"Thus, it is not an appeal to the majority, it is an appeal to reason."
"Reason" as agreed upon by the majority. Thus, a difference without a distinction.
"I think this is what the founders were doing with their appeal to the "self evident" nature of human rights." and "The genius of the Enlightenment thinking was in speaking a more solid truth to what can't be proven objectively but is, no doubt, objectively true: That human rights SHOULD be a guarantee for all people."
These concepts have been horribly perverted by contemporary leftists like you to include anything and everything that is self-serving. Your type deceitfully regard it as evolution in thinking, but honest people readily see that as cheap rationalization. For example, not giving marriage licenses to two dudes who want to pretend they're married isn't an infringement on any "rights" whatsoever. What that does, however, is deny the right of the general public to determine what words mean...in this case, "marriage"...for the benefit of a tiny minority who subjectively demand their carnal desires and how they express them be regarded as "moral" based solely on their demand alone.
"Having no way to objectively prove it, they appealed to the self evident claim because it is and should be self evident to most of us, most of the time."
I doubt you could possibly prove they ever intended to "objectively prove it". I know I've never, EVER heard it even hinted that it was a concern. They simply asserted that they held those truth to be self-evident. To them it was self-evident because it made the most sense to them based on their own Christianity influenced beliefs.
"That we have historically failed to fully recognize it, does not mean that we have failed to recognize it... just that we've imperfectly recognized it.
Am I mistaken?"
As is so usually the case, yes, because you're not speaking of the same things they are.
"Do you recognize that the large swaths of the Christian church has historically failed to recognize human rights/the GR/Do No Harm as it relates to slavery, to women's rights, to the oppression of gay folk and immigrants at various times and places? This, in spite of both affirming the GR AND affirming "God's Word" and the rules supposedly found within, right? But we have progressed, and more rights are being recognized all the time."
I recognize the typical leftist attempt to conflate their desires for what should be moral with what actually is and then arrogantly daring to suggest that those desires align with "God's Word" in any way, shape or form. That's not "progression". That's typical indulgence in one's sin nature.
"More 'rights'" are being invented to satiate personal desires. Indeed, what jokers like yourself insist are rights are merely no more than your twisted understanding of happiness, the pursuit of which, NOT the capturing is protected. That is, you can chase after the notion that you should be allowed to marry your goat, but the rest of the nation isn't in any way obliged to codify THAT perversion into law, too. Not doing so is not an example of oppression any more than not allowing theft is, nor is it a denial of rights, because your pursuit of that "happiness" is still intact. If you were jailed for daring to express that deviant desire, too, then you could claim an actual right was obstructed.
Thus, it is patently false that "more rights" are being recognized. It's as foolish that the "recognized right" to have others forced to provide payment for health care...to have doctors provided without regard to their time and compensation. Leftists pervert the notion of rights, and clearly the notion of morality as well.
"I suspect that in your circles, you no longer are willing to condemn gay folks getting married an Evil or Moral Wrong and worthy of criminalization (even though plenty of other conservatives still are) and, if so, I'd suggest it has to do with recognizing the value of the GR/Do No Harm as a criteria for moral decisions."
Regardless of the size of the circle, "gay folks" getting "married" will remain forever an evil...a moral "wrong"...the abomination it's always been. However, I don't see it as worthy of criminalization, but simply as unworthy of governmental and/or societal recognition as anything other than the abomination it is. There have been more infringement of enumerated rights by the immoral legal enabling of this unfortunate deviancy than what has ever been denied the perpetrators of it. Had Lawrence v Texas, nor the Obergefell decisions not gone the way of darkness, I would still not insist that two consenting perverts be denied their privacy to indulge their sin. They could pretend to be "married" and everything. But adopting children? Not a right and it denies the right and necessity of the children to be raised by a mother and a father as is right and just and the most beneficial scenario for their well-being. No one, least of all you, has ever been able to effectively argue that your "gay folks" are victims of having rights denied them by the denial of marriage licensing or adoptions. You simply insist it is indeed a "right".
More later. I'll probably skip some stuff, so if Dan cares to respond or believes I've purposely avoided a point he believes is unassailable, he is free to bring it up and I'll address it ASAP.
"In summation then, we see that Craig has NO alternative that is better than GR/DNH"
You can suggest that all you want, but the reality is that until you demonstrate the superiority of your moral code to the three options I've presented, it remains just as false as the first time you claimed it.
"As to Craig's suggestion that it's "too hard and complex" to explain why some other model can't be given"
The fact that I've given you, and you've ignored other models gives the lie to this claim. I know it's a lot to ask, but please don't misrepresent what I've said.
"Here's the thing: If "take the conservative Christian opinions on morality as the best measure because they are objectively right" WAS something that could be objectively proven"
Well, if someone was suggesting that, you might be right. Unfortunately, you've just made up a straw man. Again, at least represent others honestly and reasonably correctly.
"Craig could point me to it."
I have pointed you to multiple places that make excellent, solid, evidence based cases for the claims I've actually made. Unfortunately you're right that I can't point you to anything that supports your straw man distortions.
"But of course, that is not the reality of it all. It is LITERALLY human opinion that they are correctly understanding God's Will, without error. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't (they aren't) but the opinion that they are IS an unproven opinion, not an objective fact. Just to be clear."
Note what I said earlier about presuppositions. Dan is simply repeating his presuppositions with nothing to suggest that they carry any weight outside his mental fantasy world.
"Craig and Marshal say things like... If atheist scientists who espouse humanist explanations for creation assert belief in GR, then it conflicts with what they espouse scientifically. How do you resolve this conflict?"
I haven't read everything Art has written, but I've never said anything remotely like this quote you've made up. I've pointed out actual alternatives espoused by scientists. If you have to make shit up instead of dealing with the actual competing explanations, that's not my problem. Further, if/when scientists who espouse these alternatives try to sneak the GR into their construct, I'd point out that they've just contradicted themselves. It's much like you've ripped the GR from it's context in order to propose it as a pantheological/secular maxim.
1". Morality can be tricky to figure out perfectly and we will and do make mistakes."
That's your opinion, despite being presented as a fact.
2". We have no objectively provable set of criteria about what makes actions moral or immoral."
As we've pointed out this is your untested presupposition, nothing more.
"3. I'd suggest that the vast majority of the world is fine with the GR/DNH measure as perhaps our best mutually understandable criteria and, at least in broad stripes, it's not that hard to understand and accept, EVEN IF we fail to live it out perfectly."
Yes, you have. You haven't explained where it's demonstrably better than the alternatives I've offered.
"4. Craig and no one else has suggested anything that is objectively better or even apparently better."
I've suggested two alternatives supported by science (claimed to be objective) and one supported by sociologists. Clearly the above is at best a gross exaggeration.
"5. Craig and no one else has offered an alternative here that they actually believe is better."
My personal opinion isn't of any value in this discussion. This is just another excuse to avoid dealing with the alternatives.
"6. Lacking any better, more reasonable and usable alternative, I've settled on the GR/DNH measure until such time can offer a better alternative."
More accurately stated, "Lacking even the most minuscule of effort into investigating the alternatives offered, I've chosen to simply declare victory and make shit up.
"Thanks. I will be posting more on my blog."
Ahhhhhhh, the old "It's time to run away and hide behind my delete button again"
1. I suspect that your helpful article doesn't say what you think it says, as we've seen from you in the past.
2. I also suspect, that it doesn't address the alternatives I've offered.
Unfortunately, your "appeal to reason" has only been backed up with "nearly universal", "5%" and other appeals to numbers.
I thought I dealt with the problems with the "self evident" thesis in the original post. Maybe I've missed where that was demonstrated to be wrong.
Further, Dan is likely using self evident in the context of a 21st century post modern society rather than as it would have been used in a society where Scottish common sense realism was the predominant worldview.
Self evident, to the founders...
https://www.civiced.org/resources/curriculum/911-and-the-constitution/terms-to-know
A week and hundreds of comments later, and we get a link. Brutal.
Dan,
It's pretty rare when you come out and actually engage, so I appreciate that. However, at this point, given how much you've chosen not to respond to and to avoid, I just can't see continuing to invest a lot of time and effort in this. If you decide to engage further with what's been put out here, I may reconsider. But, don't expect much.
More from Dan, who likely won't demonstrate integrity and respond:
"Those who have oppressed gay folk, criminalized "gay behavior" are actively violating the GR ON THAT POINT."
Serious problems with this statement. There's a vast difference between "oppressing" homosexuals (whatever that's supposed to mean specifically) and criminalizing homosexual behavior.
Dan no doubt views the righteous opposition to the enabling support of the LGBT agenda to be "oppression" as much as actually life-threatening acts against such disordered and immoral people. That's how Dan rolls. He conflates the worst thing he can imagine with rational opposition that's based on reason and fact. Opposing the sham of SSM is one of those reasoned positions he regards as "oppression". It is not. Homosexuals are in no way harmed by not having their unholy unions legally recognized as actual marriages, which they are not. Whatever inconvenience resulted from not having that recognition never harmed any of them, because inconvenience is an irrational and unreasonable standard for "harm".
"Criminalizing" homosexual behavior is also a matter of inconvenience more than oppression, unless Dan is willing to regard criminalizing all behaviors now criminalized as oppressive to those who choose to engage in any of them, which it is. That is to say, those who choose to steal are oppressed by being arrested, convicted and sentenced in whatever manner and any thief who suffers any of those consequences would surely agree. What's more, incarceration for more egregious infractions certainly can expose the convicted to all manner of possible harm from fellow inmates.
But if a behavior...even a sexual behavior...is deemed worthy of legal prohibition in a civilized society, any legal consequences are just...NOT oppression or in conflict with the Golden Rule. More harm has befallen more people AFTER Lawrence v Texas than that which took place before it and that's true of just the homosexual population alone.
"It was/is ATROCIOUS that Muslims and others have supported slavery and the oppression of women and gay folk."
What's "ATROCIOUS" is the deceitful grouping of behavior with race and sex. To continually do this is lying willfully, intentionally and maliciously. This can happen when one lives by one's own notions of morality, rather than God's.
"People from the privileged classes and from majority classes ARE able to withstand mocking more easily than historically oppressed groups."
Unsupportable bullshit, and once again Dan goes to great lengths to push this nonsense. Note:
""I'll just laugh it off... SURE, they left a burning cross on my yard, or left a noose in my locker... but it's all in good fun. I'll just ignore the historic reality of our literal oppression with a simple little chuckle. Those KKK guys are SUCH kidders!""
This arrogant condescension requires one to be a complete moron or willfully deceitful...that is, a liar...to even attempt to run this crap. This little dialogue speaks to threats, NOT mere mockery. Dan once again proves he only pays lip service to his devotion to the GR or "embracing grace" with this insulting crapola.
You'll notice that even now, Dan has to equivocate when it comes to acknowledging that Muslims actually currently are doing all the things that Dan likes to accuse "Christians" of doing. He's always got to do stuff like "was/is" or "Christians (Muslims)", instead of acknowledging reality.
This is his exact quote.
"Christians today in parts of the world (along with Muslims) are using their religious texts and traditions to jail and cause harm to gay folk today."
I've asked for instances where this is true and for some strange reasons I haven't gotten any.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/14/countries-where-being-gay-is-legally-punishable-by-death/39574685/
13 Muslim 0 Christian
heconversation.com/slavery-is-not-a-crime-in-almost-half-the-countries-of-the-world-new-research-115596
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-that-still-have-slavery/
Muslim 2.5
Hindu .5
Atheist 2
https://www.newsweek.com/73-countries-where-its-illegal-be-gay-1385974
Can't do the score right now but of the 71 at least 19 are Muslim, and I can't quickly identify any that are Christian theocracies or where religious Christianity would dictate laws.
I'll do more research later, but the score is pretty clear.
https://www.indy100.com/article/the-countries-where-apostasy-is-punishable-by-death--Z110j2Uwxb
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/
I did apostasy as well. Didn't see any (at a quick perusal) Christian countries killing people for conversion.
I know Dan doesn't like it when data demonstrates that his preconceptions are wrong, but I also bet he won't change anything he's written, apologize for mis-characterizations, or change his accusations to reflect reality.
FYI, I intentionally tried to steer away from any overtly "christian" sources in this research. Having said that, if one slipped through, there are plenty more that are should be secular enough to satisfy Dan's prejudices.
Of course the big difference between countries that are culturally christisn and those that are Muslim is that Christianity has nothing equivalent to Sharis law.
"Should I block all comments you make because you MIGHT be lying, and block all the comments he makes because he MIGHT be lying?"
Why not? You block factual comments I make all the time on the lie that they're offensive. Ironically, this recalls the adage, "the truth hurts". And in certain cases that is an absolutely "true truth". How do you resolve that with your "do no harm" policy?
"But I barely have time to keep up with our conversations, much less to try to police/monitor your conversations.
How is that unreasonable to leave your conversations to you all?"
Most of "our" conversations flowed from that which was provoked by your posts, more often than not based in part by that which you've said in the comments section or of which you were also a part. It's not as if he only lies, or in other ways misbehaves, when you're not involved. Often he's acting in concert with your own crapola.
"I do not get into the heads of individual believers to try to guess if they REALLY REALLY mean it when they say they believe the GR. I'm just acknowledging that it's part of their tradition. I have NO REASON to doubt that they don't really believe it."
As if it is not blatantly obvious how common it is that people behave in ways that would suggest only lip service was paid to the GR. It would be far more likely to find bad actors that profess a belief in and devotion to the GR, than to find true adherents that don't act contrary to it. You're but one example. We're talking about mankind here.
“Should I block all comments you make because you MIGHT be lying, and block all the comments he makes because he MIGHT be lying?"
No, but given your often expressed passion for people who tell the truth, your quickness in deleting comments regardless of their truth, and your penchant to lie about the content of the deleted comments, it would be reasonable to delete or edit comments where there are obvious lies. Or comments where lies have been pointed out to you.
This reeks of an excuse to continue to allow and protect lies at your blog.
"Do you recognize how dubiously gay folk would likely view such a comment coming from a conservative Christian? i can hear them saying, "Oh, you're concerned about Muslims killing and jailing us because their religion teaches them it's okay to oppress and kill gay folk... BUT, you're from the MUCH more progressive religion who's God 'only' teaches them that it's okay to deny gay folk the right to marry, to adopt, to be protected from discrimination?"
First, I'm not all that concerned how "dubiously" homosexuals regard anything when doing so is to further/defend their unholy agenda. Worse, however, is this additional attempt to conflate disparate issues as if the same. Killing homosexuals is nothing at all similar to denying their demand that we pretend their unholy unions are no different than actual marriages and thus we must treat them as if they are both legally and socially. Apparently the GR goes right out the window when it comes to forcing Christians to pretend immoral behavior is moral and worthy of celebration, enabling and tolerance. What a steaming load! And the irony is that we Christians actually DO care that homosexuals are executed in under muslim laws.
"But tell me: Do you have some method of moral reasoning that will be more productive in providing protection of gay folk from religious zealots who'd harass and oppress them, I'm very open to hearing it."
Idiot. It's called "civil law". But first you'd have to define oppression more distinctly than simply homosexuals not getting their way. Give us a half-dozen examples of homosexuals being oppressed, and then maybe also another six examples of harassment. Your notions of what is right or wrong, moral or immoral, are not commonly held, so be specific.
"I'm comparing the oppression of denying rights to gay folk by Christians (which ranges from wanting to see it re-criminalized - as it used to be here in the US - to not allowing gay folk to marry, to not allowing gay folk to adopt, to not allowing human rights protections or basic civil liberties protections to gay folk)"
My gosh you're corrupt! I fully doubt you can prove outlawing homosexual behavior is being pushed by too many Christians in this country. Whether that's a good thing or not is irrelevant to that fact. But maybe you have a poll of more than a couple thousand people that will suggest that's the case.
You lie about moral people not wanting to allow homosexuals to marry. What honest people oppose is the legally making their unholy unions the same as what God intended for His creation. Don't forget all the BS whining about "slippery slope fallacies" when concerns about other immoral people demanding the same consideration were made by the same good people opposing SSM. But aside form that, since Lawrence v Texas, Christians regretfully conceded the privacy rights also belong to homosexuals who wish to pretend they're married...that they shouldn't be dragged out of their homes for engaging in their immoral sexual acts. Keep in mind we no longer pin big red "A's" on women's blouses when proven to be adulteresses.
Homosexuals adopting kids is immoral. Worse is forcing adoption agencies, particularly religious agencies, to hand kids over to homosexuals as if it's in the kids' best interest to do so. It is not. How oppressive to force people to do what they know is without question immoral.
As to "basic civil liberties protections", I wonder if you'd want to hire Donald Trump to do anything for you knowing his adulterous history. More to the point, I wonder how you'd feel if you were given no choice in the matter, to deny him because of that history. As with a Trump-type, Christians would hire anyone who concentrated on doing their job in a manner that doesn't badly reflect on the company. If a candidate for a job can't keep private his/her immoral personal lives, no company should be forced to hire or not fire such a person, regardless of the opinion of the employee (or any outsiders) on the morality of their behaviors.
So above we see that Dan's version of the GR includes a great lack of concern for the Constitutionally protected rights of Americans who don't wish to associate with or hire homosexuals, who don't wish to treat their immoral lives as if they're moral, who don't wish to be told what to regard as moral/immoral, who don't wish to risk the welfare of children by being forced to place them with homosexuals, and who don't wish to be subjected to a host of other demands of homosexuals they have no right to demand of anyone.
"Do you recognize how dubiously gay folk would likely view such a comment coming from a conservative Christian?"
There is so much wrong with this sentence.
1. It assumes "gay folx" are monolithic.
2. It ignores the fact that some "gay folk" might actually be "conservative Christians". With potentially all of the behavioral modifications that implies.
3. It assumes all "conservative Christians" are monolithic.
4. It's based on stereotypes about both groups.
5. It presumes that the two groups have absolutely zero positive interactions.
6. It presumes that "gay folx" aren't able to separate the two groups or the two issues.
7. It presumes that "gay folx" have the same bias toward Muslims as Dan.
8. It presumes that "gay folx" aren't able to distinguish between differing political positions in a secular civil government and a theocracy.
That's enough of that.
"it re-criminalized - as it used to be here in the US"
Unless I miss my guess, certain sexual acts were criminalized and the statutes didn't differentiate between which gender you chose to have coitus with. According to a quick check of Wiki. "sodomy" was banned which referred to actions not orientation. Therefore we have one lie.
"to not allowing gay folk to marry,"
Technically a false claim. Gay folx have always had the same right to marry as everyone else.
"to not allowing gay folk to adopt,"
This is an accurate claim, but adoption isn't a right and many other people have had that privilege restricted. I don't have any problem with a totally private adoption agency restricting adoptive parents, IMO.
"to not allowing human rights protections or basic civil liberties protections to gay folk"
Really, name one civil right denied to gay folx?
"We found that laws restricting apostasy and blasphemy are most common in the Middle East and North Africa, where 18 of the region’s 20 countries (90%) criminalize blasphemy and 14 (70%) criminalize apostasy. While apostasy laws exist in only two other regions of the world – Asia-Pacific and sub-Saharan Africa"
Not a precise score, but all of the regions mentioned are predominantly Muslim.
"Thirteen countries have the death penalty for apostasy, namely Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Mauritania, Maldives, Pakistan, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Why 13 out of 13 are Muslim countries or have a significant Muslim population.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-where-apostasy-is-illegal.html
What's great about this is that I could post example after example to demonstrate the dis-ingenuousness of Dan's attempt to equate Christian treatment of people to Muslim treatment of people. If the past is any guide, this significant amount of data will not alter Dan's thinking on these topics in the least. He will likely continue to blame Christians primarily for these sorts of oppression while ignoring or minimizing the contributions of Islam to these sorts of things.
https://winteryknight.com/2020/03/06/are-gay-relationships-more-stable-than-straight-ones-3/
Given the data that gay folx relationships aren't as stable and have a higher level of domestic abuse, I don't think that it's unreasonable to have concerns about placing and adoptive child in a home where the data suggest an increased likelihood of instability and/or abuse.
But that's coming from an adopted child who thinks that all children should be protected as much as possible by the state.
Note. It;s clearly, primarily the responsibility of the parents to protect their children. However, when the state has reason to get involved the default position should always prioritize the physical and emotional safety and well being of the child above all else.
Given the data that MEN are the most likely to sexually assault/abuse children, perhaps, then (by your reasoning) lesbians should exclusively be the ones who adopt?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23717437?seq=1
Of course, safety of children is vital, but we don't blame whole groups of people because some portion of them have troubles. We don't ban all men from adoptions because some men are abusers.
Are you suggesting you would oppress gay folk by not allowing them to adopt? Just another brick in the wall of the oppression of gay folk that is suggested by many conservative types.
I’ll have to find the source when I have more time, but I’ve seen data that suggests that lesbian relationships are more likely to be abusive.
Of course, if you’ll read what I said, you’d have to note that you’ve chosen to inaccurately represent my opinion.
Why don’t you try reading my comments again and modify yours in light of what I actually said. Also please consider the massive double standard you just expressed.
What you literally said:
I don't think that it's unreasonable to have concerns
about placing and adoptive child
in a home where the data suggest an increased likelihood of instability and/or abuse.
You said that in the context of "the data that gay folx relationships aren't as stable and have a higher level of domestic abuse..."
These are the arguments that many conservatives have tried to use to remove rights and oppress gay folk.
Are you suggesting that you would remove from gay folk the opportunity to adopt?
Would you consider removing the right for them to have children that they bore themselves (for lesbians, of course, or a surrogate mother)?
I expressed no double standard, Perhaps you've misunderstood something I've said. Feel free to ask for clarification.
https://ncadv.org/blog/posts/domestic-violence-and-the-lgbtq-community
“43.8% of lesbian women and 61.1% of bisexual women have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime, as opposed to 35% of heterosexual women.”
I would say that it’s reasonable to look at the actual data as a part of any adoption process. Surely you wouldn’t agree that data on the safety and stability of the adoptive households should not be a part of the adoption process.
As a general rule, I would place safety of the child and stability of the household as primary factors in all potential adoptions.
Having said that, I’ll also note that my personal opinions (although supported by data), don’t constitute oppression of anyone. Further, limiting a privilege, is in no way oppression.
In your failure to read what I said carefully and your rush to find a way to maintain your insistence in pushing an agenda, you’ve missed some crucial points. You’ve also chosen to place your agenda over the data.
Finally, I’ve always advocated that it’s wrong to judge anything or anyone by the “group” that they’re in. Especially in public policy, we should always look at the larger data as appropriate, while acknowledging that the data doesn’t automatically trump the individual situation.
“but we don't blame whole groups of people because some portion of them have troubles.”
If only you and people on your side of the political aisle applied this as a universal standard.
For example, if .3% of group X engages in behavior that causes problems for society should the 99.7% have their rights infringed because of the behavior of a tiny minority?
“Are you suggesting that you would remove from gay folk the opportunity to adopt?”
1. I’m not suggesting that I would or could do anything, I don’t have the desire or ability to impose my opinions on anyone.
2. I said that it’s not unreasonable “to have concerns”, where the data suggests those concerns are appropriate.
3. Nothing I said indicated my desire to deny gay folx the privilege of being considered for adoption.
Science and data tell us that it’s impossible for gay folx to conceive a biological child.
In this case, I’m speaking of adoption specifically, because the state takes a legal interest in both adoption and child safety.
I’d suggest that in all things related to safety and stability of the child’s family that the data should be considered, but I’m unaware of the State having the same interest in regulating surrogacy as adoption.
At least for now, biological parentage does still matter in these areas and I’d say that as long as one parent was biologically related to the child, that the state would have little or nothing to say about the situation.
I appreciate your desire to move the subject away from the topic, but you can stop now.
Double standards in this thread.
1. Placing agenda over data.
2. “but we don’t blame whole groups of people because some portion of them have troubles.”
You’re welcome, I suspect you’d have never figured that out by yourself.
Surely you wouldn’t agree that data on the safety and stability of the adoptive households should not be a part of the adoption process.
They should do what good adoption agencies do: Check on the details of the SPECIFIC FAMILY looking to adopt. You could find all kinds of reasons to exclude people based on a group, if you were wanting to do so. But penalizing ONE family on the basis of the group is a sure fire way to oppression based upon being part of a group. (They're Muslim? Well, we KNOW that some Muslims are terrorists. And also, he's black? Well, we know about black men...)
As a general rule, I would place safety of the child and stability of the household as primary factors in all potential adoptions.
Yes, and a specific child will be in a more safe and stable home when they're adopted by a quality gay family than they will be in foster care. The point would be to make sure the FAMILY who wants to adopt is vetted and qualified, NOT on excluding someone because they're part of a group (again, MEN are the ones who overwhelming abuse and molest, so by that "group" measure, any homes that contain men would be excluded based on "the data...")
Having said that, I’ll also note that my personal opinions (although supported by data), don’t constitute oppression of anyone. Further, limiting a privilege, is in no way oppression.
If you limit a privilege so that you exclude a group - if you limit so black people can't drink from THAT fountain, for instance, or gay people can't adopt a child, or that Jewish folk can't run a business - then yes, of course that is part and parcel of how people have been oppressed throughout the centuries.
We who are in majority positions have to look past our privilege and recognize the harm that comes from denying "privileges" to oppressed groups. That is, itself, an oppression.
The difference would be, it IS a privilege to adopt, not a right... and so, if that privilege is denied to a home where the man has a history of domestic violence, THAT is reasonable. If the privilege is denied to a family because they are gay or black or in some disapproved group, that is irrational and oppressive.
1. Placing agenda over data.
I haven't done that. Again, look at my words, you are mistaken. Nowhere have I said "ignore the data." What I HAVE said is look at the data for the SPECIFIC family and don't try to group them into a negative category because of their race, orientation, religion, or gender. I did the OPPOSITE of ignoring data. Again, if you are confused about something I've said, you can ask so that you can see where you're making your mistake.
I suspect that your confusion is that you're okay with oppression by profiling. "IF it is true that men are the vast majority of abusers, THEN we can reasonably exclude men from adoptions..." That is profiling, NOT looking at the data.
Unless you're going to try to suggest that some broad types of people are unfit for parenthood (Well, you know, black people shouldn't be allowed to adopt... Latinos can't adopt... gay folk can't adopt...). That is the epitome of oppressive discrimination.
You're welcome. I suspect you should be able to figure that out by yourself, but I'm glad to help you understand it.
I don't think it's the case for you, but many white straight men are confused by virtue of the privileged place they have historically enjoyed in society into just being blind to how oppression can manifest itself. To those type of people, i'd suggest they expand their world view a bit more and get beyond their privilege.
Science and data tell us that it’s impossible for gay folx to conceive a biological child.
Of course women can and do conceive babies via in vitro fertilization. Straight and lesbian women can conceive a biological child in this manner. Unless you're trying to suggest that it's not "really" conceiving a biological child unless it's done via penis, not via scientific/medical assistance.
In other words, I don't think "science" is saying what you're suggesting.
If all you're going to do is misrepresent what I've said, then why even bother to comment?
"Of course women can and do conceive babies via in vitro fertilization."
That's correct, I didn't deny this. I merely pointed out the incontrovertible biological fact that if a lesbian couple uses this technique, at least of of them has ABSOLUTELY ZERO biological relationship to the child. Of course if you're one of the morons that believes that two women can "conceive" a child outside of in vitro, then you just need to stop ever referring to biology as something of value. Good lord, it would help if you'd just read.
1. So you would agree that safety and stability should be a part of the adoption process. I guess it would have been too hard to say that.
"But penalizing ONE family on the basis of the group is a sure fire way to oppression based upon being part of a group"
Are you suggesting that this is a standard that should apply universally?
2. "Yes, and a specific child will be in a more safe and stable home when they're adopted by a quality gay family than they will be in foster care."
I guess if you're going to make these claims of fact, you should support them before you're asked, because you will be asked. Support this with facts? Also, you just passed judgement on the entire group of foster care families.
"The point would be to make sure the FAMILY who wants to adopt is vetted and qualified"
Again, you agree with what I said. It's unfortunate that you can't just acknowledge that and move on.
3. "If you limit a privilege so that you exclude a group ..."
Yet, I literally specifically didn't say that I would. I can't stress enough how important reading comprehension is.
"I suspect that your confusion is that you're okay with oppression by profiling. "IF it is true that men are the vast majority of abusers, THEN we can reasonably exclude men from adoptions..." That is profiling, NOT looking at the data."
Then stop making assumptions, supported by your preconceptions and biases and pat attention. It's really not that hard.
"Unless you're going to try to suggest that some broad types of people are unfit for parenthood."
Yet nothing I've said supports this bizarre assumption. I've been quite clear, that I believe that data about behavior should be considered (you do know what considered means, don't you?). I've said nothing about entire groups. I did express my opinion (am I allowed to have opinions anymore?), but have been clear that I have no desire or mechanism to impose my personal, private, opinion on others.
Then stop making assumptions, supported by your preconceptions and biases and pat attention. It's really not that hard.
Again, what YOU said was...
I don't think that it's unreasonable to have concerns
about placing and adoptive child
in a home where the data suggest an increased likelihood of instability and/or abuse.
What does it mean to you to "have concerns" about placing children in a home where "the data suggest an increased likelihood of instability and/or abuse..." in the context of this conversation, which appeared to be specifically about LGBTQ homes? Because it SOUNDS like you're suggesting that LGBTQ folk might be more likely to abuse "according to the data," but I wasn't sure, which is why I ASKED:
Are you suggesting that you would remove from gay folk the opportunity to adopt?
It sounds like you're raising this concern by way of oppressing a minority group by denying them this privilege that you'd allow others based on being part of that group and since it SOUNDS like that, I asked. I didn't say you were saying it, I ASKED if you were.
See the difference?
"But penalizing ONE family on the basis of the group is a sure fire way to oppression based upon being part of a group"
Are you suggesting that this is a standard that should apply universally?
Yes. Especially with any groups that have been traditionally oppressed/denied liberties.
Do you disagree?
Dan,
Read the quote you copy/pasted again. Read the words that I wrote without imposing your prejudices, assumptions, and biases on it. Maybe if you’d try that it wouldn’t be so confusing for you.
Or, since I read your quote and still don't know, why not simply answer the question?
“See the difference?”
Only in the sense that you allowed your prejudices, assumptions, and biases to color your misinterpretation of what I wrote.
"But penalizing ONE family on the basis of the group is a sure fire way to oppression based upon being part of a group"
“Are you suggesting that this is a standard that should apply universally? “
“Yes. Especially with any groups that have been traditionally oppressed/denied liberties. Do you disagree?”
No I don’t disagree at all. I just wanted to make sure that you would be applying this standard universally from here on out.
Let me be absolutely clear so that there is no confusion. It is evil for adoption agencies to place children with homosexuals. It is worse to force those agencies that recognize this fact, or simply act on the factual premise that, all things being equal, children are best served by the parenting of a mother and a father. (I added the caveat "all things being equal" to proactively address the canard that some heteros are bad parents and thus enablers like Dan will use that to further the agenda. It's a deceitful ploy.)
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-homosexual-lefts-new-crusade-normalizing-adult-child-sex?fbclid=IwAR3qGwOr1GrCjUUysC7vNaue__yvGgUtaCOFWiMnYm9C2gpKNVslEBDUno4
I've provided evidence in discussions past (more than one of them) that highlights the methodological flaws in studies purporting to demonstrate kids are no worse off, if not actually better off, with homosexual/lesbian parents, while also providing far superior studies that show just the opposite. This is on top of research that continues to show that by every measure of well-being, the homosexual community fares very, very poorly by comparison to their hetero counterparts. The risk is too great. Homosexuals should be denied the privilege of adopting kids.
As to those kids who were conceived within a normal, actual marriage before one of the parents "came out", the kid should go with the normal parent left behind. Should the normal parent die, the "gay" parent should have the honor and love and devotion to the child by denying him/herself until such time as the child becomes an adult, rather than expose the child during childhood to an immoral lifestyle that might influence the child toward a favorable opinion of homosexuality.
Note that my comments above are in total conflict with the agenda Dan supports. While he thinks of the homosexual first, I put the child first. While I protect and defend the innocent...by which I mean children and those who dedicate themselves to seeing children properly raised...Dan thinks only of enabling immoral and disordered behavior first, kids be damned.
This "entire group" is properly regarded as problematic for kids and those kids who as adults insist their childhood was fine are the exception based on the best research, not the rule. At best, the risk for kids is simply too high to NOT rule against placing them with homosexuals or lesbians.
I DO have both desire and mechanism to impose my opinion on others. It's called "the vote" and I would cast it in a heartbeat for any honest, moral candidate with the courage to fight against the baseless demands and whining of the LGBT activists. No one should support sexual immorality and no one should allow kids to be exposed to it.
"But penalizing ONE family on the basis of the group is a sure fire way to oppression based upon being part of a group"
That would depend upon the group, now, wouldn't it? This group in question is based on a specific behavior, whereas other groups are based on immutable characteristics, such as race or ethnicity. So a group based on behavior is subject to judgement because the behavior is subject to judgement. This group in question engages in behavior most people know is immoral and/or disordered.
The behavior of a group that is immoral and thus denied certain privileges is not "oppressed" because they are denied. Being denied is the righteous consequence of their immorality. Just as with any other person who engages in bad behavior, repent of the behavior and privileges will be restored. That's how it's supposed to work, but "progressive" "Christians" are corrupt and easily taken in by the whining of immoral people.
Here’s your answer.
I think it’s reasonable to have concerns, and investigate said concerns, prior to placing an adoptive child into a household where data indicates a potential increase in the likelihood of abuse or instability.
Perhaps your confusion was my use of the word “household”, it’s clearly a secret code word for every single gay folk in the world.
Art, I haven’t read everything, but I disagree that it’s categorically “evil” to place an adoptable child with a couple of “gay folx”. I have my opinions about it, but acknowledge that it might be a better situation than the alternative.
Art,
I disagree that voting is imposing the opinion of a single individual opinion on a group. Voting is a society expressing its collective view on an issue.
Sociologists say that morality is defined by the standards of a society, or group of people for themselves. If this is the case, then a vote is society defining what’s moral for that society.
It’s not imposition, because the other side of the issue has the opportunity to make their case, rally their supporters, and pass the laws they want.
Of course, that’s if the sociologists are correct.
I do agree that the best possible situation for raising children is two parents. Father and mother who are married, educated, employed, not addicted, and equally engaged. But that ideal doesn’t mean there isn’t a continuum and that it’s possible to be good parents under virtually any circumstances.
Marshal... "Should the normal parent die, the "gay" parent should have the honor and love and devotion to the child by denying him/herself until such time as the child becomes an adult, rather than expose the child during childhood to an immoral lifestyle..."
And...
"It is evil for adoption agencies to place children with homosexuals."
This is the irrational, destructive and hateful attitude that people see ultraconservative Christians holding and why so many view conservatives and their visions of morality as out of touch with reality and dangerous.
Craig... "but I disagree that it’s categorically “evil” to place an adoptable child with a couple of “gay folx”
And this more "moderate" conservative response is why people view even more moderate conservative as part of the problem, too. It's a very milquetoast response to say to the fundamentalist types, instead of a full-on denouncement and rebuke... as if you're afraid of hurting the feelings of your ultra-conservative friends, you're not afraid to stand up for justice for oppressed minorities.
Actually it’s a perfectly fine response. It’s an indication that it’s possible to categorically disagree without vitriol, anger, or self elevation. It’s not necessary to verbally abuse someone who we disagree with. Maybe you could try it sometime.
I was pretty sure about you consistently applying your standards, I looks like that was a reasonable concern.
It is my opinion that when we were talking about oppression and harm, some vitriol and strong words are reasonable. Again, look to John the Baptist, Mary the mother of Jesus, Jesus, James.
It is my opinion that when we are talking about oppression and harm, some vitriol and strong words are reasonable. Again, look to John the Baptist, Mary the mother of Jesus, Jesus, James.
I think their example is a very good example for us to embrace as a model. Do you disagree?
I agree that it’s your opinion, which conveniently gives you license to revel in your vitriol and abusive language. In your opinion it justifies your “ends justify the means” approach you often take.
The question, as usual, is what was the motivation Jesus (et al)?
To stand up against oppression and those who actively cause harm.
WOE to you Pharisees, hypocrites! Who add rule upon rule on the backs of people, weighing them down!
Harm.
Woe to you who are rich now.
Harm.
Watch out for the wealthy... is it not they who drag you to court?
Harm.
Etc.
Do you disagree?
Do I disagree that it is OUR responsibility to heap woe onto people we perceive as oppressors, yes I do.
Do I think that hatred, vitriol, and abusive language are required for this, no.
Do I think that Jesus has the authority to call down woe (harm), on people? Absolutely, does Dan magically inherit that authority, no.
It seems as though you’re now suggesting that it’s appropriate to bring/threaten harm (your word), to people in the name of Jesus. Interesting in light of the previous string of comments.
No, I did not suggest threatening harm to oppressors. You can tell by the way I never said anything remotely close to that. The harm I spoke of was the harm the rich and powerful oppressors were bringing upon the poor and marginalized.
Understand?
Given the ridiculous way your comment was worded, it was not particularly clear.
I’m sure it couldn’t be any failure on your part.
"This is the irrational, destructive and hateful attitude that people see ultraconservative Christians holding..."
Let's align this sentiment more closely with reality:
This is the irrational, destructive and hateful attitude that irrational, destructive and hateful leftist people see honest and moral Christians who understand the research holding
It also demonstrates Dan's character flaw Craig routinely points out in which Dan spews vitriol toward those who don't abide his beliefs.
In the meantime, Dan continues to conflate opposition to immoral sexual behavior with "oppression of minorities". How nice they are still in the minority and how much nicer if all others who engage in other forms of sexual immorality were also few in number! Dan continues to falsely regard the LGBT community as being those grouped according to an immutable characteristic, rather than those who act on immoral urges and desires. Then, to compound his sin, he attacks those who refuse to abide that blatantly false narrative and join him in it.
And of course, he subordinates the welfare of the child to appease the demands and desires of the sexually immoral so that they can pretend they're "good people" while putting those children at risk. And while they may have no intention of harming children, it doesn't mean their influence won't be harmful.
"It is my opinion that when we were talking about oppression and harm, some vitriol and strong words are reasonable."
And yet, neither Craig nor I have engaged in such when faced with the oppression you advocate and perpetrate against moral people who won't reject the immorality of the LGBT agenda that you support in your corruption. We defend the civil rights of all people without pretending doing so includes tolerating, promoting or enabling their perversions.
"No, I did not suggest threatening harm to oppressors. You can tell by the way I never said anything remotely close to that. The harm I spoke of was the harm the rich and powerful oppressors were bringing upon the poor and marginalized."
What we understand is that you can't whine about honest expressions regarding your favored sinners being harmful and oppressive while engaging in your dishonest expressions regarding those you wish to call oppressive. The ironic hypocrisy is strong with you. I guess somehow your irrational avoidance of material wealth makes you think your form of oppression is moral. Those who rose up against the French aristocrats in the late 1700s no doubt felt the same way. Indeed, you engage in the very same stereotyping about which race-hustlers complain.
Craig,
"I disagree that voting is imposing the opinion of a single individual opinion on a group."
I'm not saying it's effective all by one's lonesome. But it's imposing one's opinion nonetheless. It simply takes millions of like minded people to succeed in that imposition.
"It’s not imposition, because the other side of the issue has the opportunity to make their case, rally their supporters, and pass the laws they want."
Until they can, the moral opinion of those other millions of individuals are often imposed on all.
"I do agree that the best possible situation for raising children is two parents...etc"
It is so much better that there exists any argument otherwise is suspect. I don't see placing kids with homosexuals to be necessarily better for them than not placing kids at all as the alternative. No doubt kids thrive in a family setting, but that would be the traditional family setting as most kids intuitively wish that for themselves. (Babies are unaware of what's happening around them so the placement of babies with homosexuals is even more egregious.) I would much prefer standards for orphanages and foster parents be made as strict as possible (vetting for foster parents as strong as for eventual adoptive parents) so as to provide the best possible situation for kids for whom proper parents cannot be found.
Do I think that Jesus has the authority to call down woe (harm), on people? Absolutely, does Dan magically inherit that authority, no.
So help clarify for me, please. I believe that Jesus offered his life as a model. I believe that we are to imitate Jesus. I think that the prophets and apostles and other followers offer some good examples to follow.
Therefore, I believe that when the prophets, when Mary, the mother of Jesus, when the apostle James and when Jesus ALL use harsh words to speak to those hypocritical oppressors and wealthy people whose excesses and greed cause harm to the poor and oppressed, I believe it is perfectly acceptable option to ALSO use harsh words.
BLIND GUIDES.
You who are ACCURSED.
SNAKES.
Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.
Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten.
Your gold and silver have rusted and their rust will be
evidence against you
and will eat your flesh like fire.
Tear down the rich and powerful.
These are harsh words to fellow human beings. To fellow believers, even.
Certainly, the norm is to strive to live in peace with everyone. HOWEVER, when there are rich oppressors, then there are all manner of tools we might use against them (following biblical models, in addition to others we may have come up with since those days) and the use of harsh, condemning words are in that tool box. Clearly, it was acceptable to Jesus, the prophets and Jesus' followers.Why was it/is it okay? Because we're talking about real harm that happens to real oppressed people.
Jesus drove out the money changers with whips (not necessarily using it on them, but on their animals) for cheating the poor and abusing the house of God. Pretty harsh stuff. Do you think perhaps staging a Direct Action event in which we similarly chase out the rich who oppress the poor from some place where it's happening? It's certainly an example Jesus set.
Do you think it's NOT appropriate for us to follow the example of Jesus and these others in this regard?
Why so?
One reason gay folk are a minority is that they’re en evolutionary dead end. For the narrative to be true, they have to be born that way, not converted/recruited. Which means they can’t reproduce themselves to a level necessary to get to any larger of s minority than currently.
I’ve dealt with this before and see no reason to spend an inordinate amount of time going further off topic.
I find your attempt to use Jesus use of violence to justify your opinion, while trying to dodge the fact that is was violent.
I understand that you need to find enough proof texts to justify your continued use of hatred, vitriol, and personal attacks on those you perceive as enemies. It’s absolutely hilarious when you decide to cherry pick the tiny number of proof texts that you interpret in a woodenly literal manner because they give you the perception of approval for your grace less behavior. If only you’d accept a more literal interpretations of the rest of scripture, rather than just the parts that you find helpful in justifying your behaviors.
First, I have to note that the fact that you limit the targets of your vitriol to a very tiny subset of all the possible targets (rich oppressors, regular oppressors are fine, but rich oppressors...), yet aim your vitriol at people like Art and I seems contradictory. Further, I note your choice to follow the “example” of Jesus’ life (as if nothing differentiated you and Jesus), yet I don’t hear quite the same reverence for Jesus’ commandments.
It’s almost like you’re saying that we should ACT like God, but we don’t need follow the rules of God.
“Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.”
Does following the example of Jesus include telling people the above?
Does following the example of Jesus life entail acknowledging that the above statement is True?
Well, Craig, of course we can't prove that Jesys ever said anything that conflicts with Dan's position. And again, who is more oppressive than those who abort babies? Yet Dan protects and defends them and supports for public office those who do as well through legislation. Not as egregious but also troubling is the oppression who want to indulge their rights of free speech, freedom of association and freedom to live according to their faith. As you suggest, Dan concerns himself only with unnamed rich oppressors as if the oppression that doesn't bother him in the least has no rich donors contributing to it.
I just saw a video of a woman in Indonesia being publicly beaten for violating sharia law. But strangely enough even though Islamic countries are often rich, and always oppressive, Dan seems willing to give them a benefit of the doubt that he won’t give fellow Christians. That’s the minimum, he’s definitely gone further than that.
Dan’s tolerance for oppression, like his Biblical literalism, and expressions of grace, are situational at best.
Now he'll pivot and state he only cares about our country, the way he insists he is focused on the highest office in the land.
He’s used that before to excuse his silence on anyone but Trump and why he doesn’t hold anyone else to the standards he claims to hold Trump to.
Post a Comment