Beg pardon? How is that? I split it into two: divorce because of abuse and divorce because of adultery. Both harm the other spouse, although you may not think so. What does the judge have to do with anything?Originally Posted by JBI
Beg pardon? How is that? I split it into two: divorce because of abuse and divorce because of adultery. Both harm the other spouse, although you may not think so. What does the judge have to do with anything?
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
"The death of dogma is the birth of morality."
-Immanuel Kant
Et l'unique cordeau des trompettes marines
Apollinaire, Le chantre
The point is, you mentioned before how divorce was bad, now we are saying perhaps it was good, given different reasons for it. What happens if we take adultery, and break that down further, creating cases where it is not so immoral. The point is, we cannot create a general rule. For instance, stealing is condemned by scripture (see the ten commandments) yet Hugo seems to have shown us that that too isn't as black and white, as did people before him.
By that notion, each case, each act, must be evaluated separately, and not against a broad statement.
I love that: "not so immoral." Like there's degrees of immorality I guess?
We can create a general rule - with the understanding that when moral injunctions collide (the standard lying to the Nazis to save the Jews hiding in my cellar) that the higher moral command (preserve life from harm) overrides the lesser command (tell the truth) - especially when obeying the lesser command facilitates a greater evil; both actions are immoral (lying and surrenderin the innocent into the hands of the evil), but there is a greater sin in allowing the lesser command to take priority over the greater command. In a sinful world, it is not always possible to have moral commands avoid potential collisions - this, however, does not invalidate the need for a general rule.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
No, I'm of the belief that there is no such thing as objective morality. I'm merely putting things in words you will understand, as your assumption of the actual existence of morality, good and bad in general, obscures any argument, given that you feed your assumption, rather than choose to ignore them, for the sake of arriving at somewhat of a conclusion that would perhaps be different than your already assumed "truths" you've been spending countless points defending.
Why do we need a general rule? So that people who believe in a set of rules can impose them on others? General rules only give those who benefit from them more stance. Do not steal only benefits people who have something to steal. Do not commit adultery only benefits the spouse of someone in a "bad" marriage agreement with their spouse. Do not be jealous is a) contrary to the standard impulses of our society, and b) would end with the death of competition, and the slow decline of any market economy.
Do not murder is fine, but what if, for instance, someone assassinates a fascist dictator? Either way though, the American government in the forties decided that murdering Japanese civilians with an atomic bomb was less evil than sending in their soldiers, and perhaps losing some. Where do we draw the line?
Now that you see your argument crumble, you insist on creating a hierarchy. What goes on top then? Preserving life? So should we have a fascist police state, keeping people in line everywhere, and not letting people outside? Seems like something out of a bad sci-fi novel to me.
I never said it was 'good.' I said 'sensible.' In matters of abuse, it's either be hurt physically or, in matters of adultery, it's be hurt mentally and spiritually.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
That is bizarre. Doesn't everybody have something to steal? As to not being jealous being contrary to standard impulses: IMPULSES AREN'T ALWAYS GOOD. We've been through that already. We are also talking about people here, not economic policies, although competition is different than jealousy.
Assassination, even of a fascist dictator, is wrong. Trial by panel and being sentenced to death is better--an eye for an eye, a life for a life. Just be careful you can judge rightly.
The argument hasn't crumbled, far from it. And the "hierarcy" existed long before you posted -- the Bible says that we are to follow our government in everything unless it controverts the Bible. Following the Bible, then, goes on top. Preserving life is important, but for the most part adults can be entrusted with their own lives, I presume. In any event life is fleeting -- what's important is to stand up for what you believe in. That's why missionaries have risked their lives "so that a man can stand up."
What does fascism have to do with protecting life? I do not understand why you brought it up. Where is the parallel?
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
I think that just because morality varies from case to case, it doesn't necesarrily mean that there is no objective morality. Each case could have its own objective way, (that may be too elusive for a set of rules to control).
I think laws in general are inadequate. But its a good thing that we have laws because it prevents decadence and a world that lacked laws would make everyone more on the defensive in their daily life which would be anti-productive.
In a way I think codifying moral rules is a good thing, because it acknowledges that there ARE rules out there. It is an attempt, and a provocation of thought. But it should not be imposed via force.
As much as I disagree with religion, I think its a good thing they exist. Because I don't see many people giving a care about right/wrong without somekind of mystic instigation.
That is a really good point. How many people would change their views on the morality of certain things if there was no such thing as religion. Is the thought of religion and going to hell enough to keep some people in check?
Killing is always wrong. But sometimes it could be better than not killing. If you were just some Valkeyrie during the times of the nazis. Trial by jury against Hitler wouldn't have done any good.
This may sound silly but I believe there is right and wrong. But we never live up to TOTAL RIGHT or TOTAL WRONG in any given situation
And I won't disagree with you, I just asked you to be honest about how we go about doing thing. Repenting daily is required because we don't do things like we would like to say we do, we do them even though we know we are wrong for doing them. Paul makes this clear in Romans. If you are not honest with people, they will never listen to you, for they see you as you are, not how you think or believe you are. Some might call this view cynical, but it is the truth in reality.
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
Obviously. You are free to believe so, but if I took out a gun and robbed you - claiming that your indignant reaction was merely your subjective idea of right and wrong - would you tolerate my subjective morality for very long? If you get angry that I'm robbing you, aren't you responding to some idea that you and I should share about what right and wrong is? Or would you accept my view as "mine" and let me be?
The irony here is that I can't follow any of what you said here. If you could simplify your ideas here, this humble man would be appreciative.
Who's doing the "imposing" that you speak of? Certainly not the church. You - clearly a nonbeliever - may act as you wish and do as you like in this world. The church claims no authority over you. The church cannot impose anything upon you against your will. The general rule gives us a "ground" upon which to establish consistency among people and communities. General rules allow us to solve problems by appealing to a standard.
There is no commandment against jealousy.
The general rules against theft and adultery protect everybody. That there are people that break those rules doesn't invalidate their intrinsic value.
I addressed your first point above with the idea of the "greater moral command." In terms of assassinating a dictator, that's a difficult decision. But the existence of dilemma's doesn't make the general rule invalid - it means that there are times that the rule may be tested, or - for a good reason - violated.
My argument's crumbling? Where?
Apparently, there is no answer that will satisfy you. Ultimately, we must take responsiblity for the choices we make. I think that it's fairly clear that saving a human life far outweighs a lie - I think most people would choose to lie to the Nazis; and I'm pretty sure that you would have harsh condemnation for any Christian who "outed" the Jews in the cellar because "the Bible says not to lie." There is no set heirarchy - but God has given us all reason and the principles in the Bible to help us make such decisions.
I don't get the "fascist police state" comment - I'd need a little more to be clear on the point you're making.
The real sci-fi novel in the making is "Relativity World" where nothing has any meaning because all meaning, all morality, all rules are self-defined. Can you imagine a worse hell? Once we lose the stable "ground" of morality, you give a free pass to those who are the strongest to do whatever they wish because you now have no moral ground from which to condemn their behaviors. Poof! Immorality disappears because there's no standard by which to identify it (except your own subjective morality - but what claim would that have upon me and my stronger will, my higher caliber gun?).
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
The only problem with that premise is that if there were any truth in it, the highest crime rates would be in countries with the lowest theistic belief.
Alas, the opposite is true.
I believe there is net societal benefit in religion, but that one isn't part of it.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Honestly, I'm just going to avoid that rubbish you posted, and slap you with one wrong - what is the tenth commandment - is it not against jealousy? Or perhaps you can come up with a better translation of Loh Tach Modd. Thou shalt not covet seems the standard, but to not covet would imply not to be jealous.
Either way, you are unable to, as you stated, understand what I am saying. Perhaps the sun doesn't rise for you. Bam! irony.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
