Punisher1984
New member
The distinction is very simple: stay out of my affairs and I will have no qualms with you, but if you meddle in my business you better be prepared for the consequenses thereof.
toldailytopic: Absolute morality. Is the standard of right and wrong relative to ours
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
The distinction is very simple: stay out of my affairs and I will have no qualms with you, but if you meddle in my business you better be prepared for the consequenses thereof.
DocJohnson
New member
Hitler was of sound mind up until his suicide in 1945. What does that prove?
Punisher1984
New member
:doh:
I respect myself as an individual, what I *don't* do is let that respect turn into reverance - at that point one is likely to let things go to his head.
I'm glad you concur.
Is that where you guys hide the beer?
Punisher simply describes what every man faces, people forget that society is just a bunch of people.
DocJohnson
New member
You're an Atheist... it's too late for that.
Calypso
New member
Man's morality "without" God . . .
Romans 1: 22 - 31 KJV
22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 - And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 - Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 - Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 - For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 - And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 - And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 - Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 -Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 - Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
God Bless
Last edited:
What if your daughter was being gang raped, how would you handle that with "civility"?
Why do cops have guns?
Chalmer Wren
New member
The Graphite
New member
Is the standard of right and wrong relative?
Yes!
He's a relative of the Father, and of the Spirit!
Yes!
He's a relative of the Father, and of the Spirit!
Calypso
New member
Romans 1: 20 - 22 KJV
20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 - Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
God Bless
Last edited:
WizardofOz
New member
absolute?
absolute?
Theists and non-theists alike engage in moral relativism. It is therefore a bit absurd, in my opinion, to paint this as an atheist vs. theist division.
For example, is it absolutely wrong to dash the infants of your captors against rocks? How about genocide? Killing unarmed prisoners?
Why or why not?
Everyone's morals and dogmas are arbitrary in many cases. Even with the fundamentalist, where direct commands or guidelines are not given, it is up to the subjective self to determine right and wrong based on personal perception, societal norms, et al.
An example of this would be: is it immoral to worship a golden calf? Why or why not?
It is far too simplistic to say it is absolutely immoral to murder because God said so. There are many philosophical justifications for deeming it so. The conclusion reached by these determinations are almost always universal and quite secular.
absolute?
Theists and non-theists alike engage in moral relativism. It is therefore a bit absurd, in my opinion, to paint this as an atheist vs. theist division.
For example, is it absolutely wrong to dash the infants of your captors against rocks? How about genocide? Killing unarmed prisoners?
Why or why not?
Everyone's morals and dogmas are arbitrary in many cases. Even with the fundamentalist, where direct commands or guidelines are not given, it is up to the subjective self to determine right and wrong based on personal perception, societal norms, et al.
An example of this would be: is it immoral to worship a golden calf? Why or why not?
It is far too simplistic to say it is absolutely immoral to murder because God said so. There are many philosophical justifications for deeming it so. The conclusion reached by these determinations are almost always universal and quite secular.
I realize it would be handy for you to obfuscate by turning this discussion into a biblical one (others have already tried on this thread).
This topic hits to the very heart of the question "does a god exist?" not necessarily which god exists (that discussion might come later).
Furthermore...
Absolute morality cannot often be determined without circumstance or motivation. It's in light of circumstance and motivation that absolute morality comes to light.
So I ask you....
Is it wrong for a 48 year old man to violently rape and murder an 8 year old girl for no other reason than sexual gratification?
Self-determining
Self-determining
How will you deal with the people who don't think it is wrong? bybee
Self-determining
How will you deal with the people who don't think it is wrong? bybee
Cops have guns on their belts and nations have armies in answer to your question.
4string
New member
Morals relative to each person or absolute and given by God? Are those the only options?
It does?
Clearly not, such an action violates her rights and will no doubt cause her much physical and mental trauma that will probably hinder her through the rest of her life.
Now I ask you, if you were the priest in the exorcist (second one? I forget) forced by the nazi's to select 5 out of 12 people to be shot and killed else he'll kill all of them, what's the absolute moral that comes to light here?
It does?
Clearly not, such an action violates her rights and will no doubt cause her much physical and mental trauma that will probably hinder her through the rest of her life.
Now I ask you, if you were the priest in the exorcist (second one? I forget) forced by the nazi's to select 5 out of 12 people to be shot and killed else he'll kill all of them, what's the absolute moral that comes to light here?
Oh cool, this is turning into the hypothetical moral dilema thread.
Those always turn out well
I'm not familier with the movie or the situation but from that discription my response would be "No".
It's not wrong? Is that your answer?
Yet your full answer makes me think that you do think it's wrong. Sorry, but I am a bit unsure of what you are saying.
I would never do evil so that good might come of it.
I would not murder for the murderer. I would do everything in my power to save all the people even if it meant losing my own life.
Do right, and risk the consequences.
- Status