Take Back Our Country

[Mountain Man]

Yep. I tend to read too quickly sometimes. I am currently at work and I have a lot of pauses while tasks run in the background so I use the time to check Tweb. But I do sometimes rush when things are hectic.

I, on the other hand, never make misteaks.

[seer]

Now THERE is an audacious claim. Do you know anything about my background or history, Seer?

But I'm am right, I know what the text says. I will be happy to debate them with you.

Seer, your entire argument hinges on a) there being a god (which you cannot show) and whether the existence of such a being would make morality "absolute/objective" (which you also cannot show). And your statement about homosexuality is based on your understanding of the text and your subjective acceptance of this text as an "absolute" (which you also cannot show).

Of course my argument is based on God, whether I can prove that to you is immaterial to my argument. And you are being a bit disingenuous, the Biblical texts are quite clear on this subject, it does not take interpretation any more than I need some special understanding to get what you wrote above. Words have meaning.

You have an entire moral system built upon perceptions and subjective opinions and beliefs. As I said in an earlier post, those of us who understand that morality is relative/subjective see you doing the equivalent of claiming cars are blue, blue cars are best - better than red cars, defending it by arguing that red cars aren't blue, insisting you are driving a blue car, and then contentedly driving away in your red car.

It leaves us shaking our heads just a tad....

That is just stupid, in your world even if that was what I was doing it would be perfectly acceptable in your relative worldview. How could it not be? And yes, I subjectively believe that God and His moral law exists - does that mean it doesn't? If I subjectively believe the color blue exists does that mean it doesn't?

[seer]

I'm going to assume this means "for believing relative/subjective morality is meaningless." So what are your other reasons?

This much we know.

You have a more dismal view of a godless universe than I, Seer. But I can understand that, because you are viewing it from the perspective that the all powerful, all knowing, all benevolent creator loves you personally and will grant you eternal existence. From that vaunted viewpoint, everything else looks like a swamp. Unfortunately, if none of that is actually real...

The point Carp, is that I find relative ethics problematic for a number of reasons.

[carpedm9587]

I, on the other hand, never make misteaks.

I bet you actually believe that...

[carpedm9587]

But I'm am right, I know what the text says. I will be happy to debate them with you.

Of course you are, Seer. After all, you believe your interpretation is flawless. So do the people who disagree with you. This is an internal issue to Christianity. I have no desire to debate the interpretation of a book that we do not agree on the basics of what it is and what it represents. The entire exercise is pointless, IMO.

Of course my argument is based on God, whether I can prove that to you is immaterial to my argument.

If your argument is based on god, Seer, and you cannot demonstrate that such a being exists, then I would respectfully suggest that your argument lacks a foundation, by definition.

And you are being a bit disingenuous, the Biblical texts are quite clear on this subject, it does not take interpretation any more than I need some special understanding to get what you wrote above. Words have meaning.

Words have meanings. Words are always subject to interpretation based on context and usage. In this case you'd be debating the meaning of words written in completely different languages, times, cultures for which you have no actual original copies. I am frankly amazed that anyone bases their worldview on it, but I understand that the practice is widely entrenched.

That is just stupid, in your world even if that was what I was doing it would be perfectly acceptable in your relative worldview. How could it not be?

Umm... no. If you think so, then you do not understand relative/subjective morality as I have defined and described it. Perhaps the words are in the way. There are other definitions of those terms. And the red/blue has nothing to do with morality - it is an analogy to outline what your logical process is. You are free to consider it "stupid." Calling it so does not make it so.

And yes, I subjectively believe that God and His moral law exists - does that mean it doesn't?

No - but then I never said it did. However, if the belief in the very foundation of your moral world is subjective, how can you then claim that the moral world itself is not?

If I subjectively believe the color blue exists does that mean it doesn't?

I have no idea how this relates to anything, so I have no response.

[seer]

Of course you are, Seer. After all, you believe your interpretation is flawless. So do the people who disagree with you. This is an internal issue to Christianity. I have no desire to debate the interpretation of a book that we do not agree on the basics of what it is and what it represents. The entire exercise is pointless, IMO.

This is just one of the techniques of the left, to pretend that words and context don't have a specific meaning - that it is all open to interpretation. If I took that attitude with your writing Carp, you would rightly call foul.

If your argument is based on god, Seer, and you cannot demonstrate that such a being exists, then I would respectfully suggest that your argument lacks a foundation, by definition.

Do you have a foundation for your belief that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality Carp? No you don't. Yet you believe that is true. I have any number of supporting arguments for my position, none of which you will find compelling - but of course your unbelief tells us nothing...

Words have meanings. Words are always subject to interpretation based on context and usage. In this case you'd be debating the meaning of words written in completely different languages, times, cultures for which you have no actual original copies. I am frankly amazed that anyone bases their worldview on it, but I understand that the practice is widely entrenched.

It is not rocket science Carp, we have a very good understanding of the cultures and languages of Biblical times. Just another technique in an attempt to dismiss Biblical revelation. But I would expect nothing less from an atheist.

Umm... no. If you think so, then you do not understand relative/subjective morality as I have defined and described it. Perhaps the words are in the way. There are other definitions of those terms. And the red/blue has nothing to do with morality - it is an analogy to outline what your logical process is. You are free to consider it "stupid." Calling it so does not make it so.

What logical process? If it is all relative, reasoning is just as subjective as anything else. But again, you have no rational argument against the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality except to say that you don't share that opinion. You can not know what kind of future consequences result from any moral position you support.

However, if the belief in the very foundation of your moral world is subjective, how can you then claim that the moral world itself is not?


I have no idea how this relates to anything, so I have no response.

That is the point, just because I subjectively believe something doesn't mean that it is not an objective fact. Hence, I subjectively believe the color blue exists - it is a subjective belief in an objective reality.

[carpedm9587]

This is just one of the techniques of the left, to pretend that words and context don't have a specific meaning - that it is all open to interpretation. If I took that attitude with your writing Carp, you would rightly call foul.

Words are the very definition of "relative" Seer. Their meaning can change over time (e.g., gay, faggot, nice, cool, awful, spinster, naughty, etc.). New words are created and old words fall out of use. Language is the very definition of malleable. Obviously, it cannot be so malleable that we cannot communicate. In my experience, the vast majority of disagreements occur because two people are using words differently. Now you are trying to define, in absolute terms, the meaning of a text that you do not have any originals of, has been translated from other languages, is written in a foreign and ancient culture, and is written by multiple (largely unknown) authors.

Your claim to knowing the "absolute meaning" of your book is on shaky ground even before you start, Seer.

Do you have a foundation for your belief that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality Carp? No you don't. Yet you believe that is true. I have any number of supporting arguments for my position, none of which you will find compelling - but of course your unbelief tells us nothing...

I have the same way of assessing what is "real" that everyone has, Seer: observation of what is around me and reasoning on those observations. The difference, my conclusions are based on direct observations - day-to-day realities we encounter all the time. Your beliefs are based on the bible...a text you claim to have an absolute interpretation of, except you've already acknowledged that previous interpretations were in error. So how do you know you're not in error now, and just not seeing it?

When someone says, "I am right," I hear "I have closed my mind."

It is not rocket science Carp, we have a very good understanding of the cultures and languages of Biblical times. Just another technique in an attempt to dismiss Biblical revelation. But I would expect nothing less from an atheist.

I have the same way of assessing what is "real" that everyone has, Seer: observation of what is around me and reasoning on those observations. The difference, my conclusions are based on direct observations - day-to-day realities we encounter all the time. Your beliefs are based on the bible...a text you claim to have an absolute interpretation of, except you've already acknowledged that previous interpretations were in error. So how do you know you're not in error now, and just not seeing it?

Your opinion is duly noted, Seer. You still have the problems listed above. And you have the problem of a whole lot of other Christians reading the same book, coming to different interpretations, and insisting they are just as right as you. You can't ALL be right. Yet each of you insists you are. From the outside looking in, it's a pretty dicey claim.

What logical process? If it is all relative, reasoning is just as subjective as anything else. But again, you have no rational argument against the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality except to say that you don't share that opinion. You can not know what kind of future consequences result from any moral position you support.

I would never hold someone morally accountable for unforeseen outcomes, Seer. And the logical process I was referring to is the endless exchange we have had on morality. You continue to insist that morality must be absolute. You cannot show that it is. Your primary argument is that relative morality is no good because it's not absolute. Then you acknowledge that your core beliefs are subjective and everything else builds on them.

Like I've said, it's the equivalent of insisting cars must be blue. Not being able to show why this "must" is actual. Your primary argument that red cars are no good is "they're not blue." Then you drive off in your red car. It leaves most of us relative moralists shaking our heads at the inconsistency.

That is the point, just because I subjectively believe something doesn't mean that it is not an objective fact. Hence, I subjectively believe the color blue exists - it is a subjective belief in an objective reality.

That much is true. It's also not a proof that it DOES exist, and you then claim that your morality is objectively/absolutely rooted but your beliefs are subjective and your source is a subjectively interpreted text. And the only reason you turn to this text is because you value "god" above all things, which is exactly how a relative/subjective moralist functions.

I know you're convinced you're a moral realist, and you are welcome to cling to that illusion if you wish. It is certainly your right. Anyone can call themselves anything they wish. But you cannot actually show the existence of this "absolute/objective" moral framework and nothing about what you do and how you function supports your claim.

What is it you like to say? I'm free to invent my morality as I wish? Well, you are likewise free to cling to the illusion of moral absoluteness/objectivity. The only negative consequence is that it tends to close the mind to discussion, exploration, and argumentation. That means if you have actually adopted a pretty ugly position (e.g., homosexuality), you're going to stay stubbornly locked to it for no other reason than "the book says so."

[seer]

Words are the very definition of "relative" Seer. Their meaning can change over time (e.g., gay, faggot, nice, cool, awful, spinster, naughty, etc.). New words are created and old words fall out of use. Language is the very definition of malleable. Obviously, it cannot be so malleable that we cannot communicate. In my experience, the vast majority of disagreements occur because two people are using words differently. Now you are trying to define, in absolute terms, the meaning of a text that you do not have any originals of, has been translated from other languages, is written in a foreign and ancient culture, and is written by multiple (largely unknown) authors.

Pure bull Carp, we know exactly what the Biblical writers meant by man having sex with men and women have sex with women. You are being dishonest.

I have the same way of assessing what is "real" that everyone has, Seer: observation of what is around me and reasoning on those observations. The difference, my conclusions are based on direct observations - day-to-day realities we encounter all the time. Your beliefs are based on the bible...a text you claim to have an absolute interpretation of, except you've already acknowledged that previous interpretations were in error. So how do you know you're not in error now, and just not seeing it?

More nonsense Carp, you can not demonstrate (logically or empirically) that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality. You take that completely by faith - if you think otherwise debate me on the Philosophy board, you will lose. The Bible is the single most influential book of human history, and the Christ of the Bible the single most influential person of human history. What do you have Carp? Your own twisted, finite reasoning, void of all the necessary facts?

That much is true. It's also not a proof that it DOES exist, and you then claim that your morality is objectively/absolutely rooted but your beliefs are subjective and your source is a subjectively interpreted text. And the only reason you turn to this text is because you value "god" above all things, which is exactly how a relative/subjective moralist functions.

I know you're convinced you're a moral realist, and you are welcome to cling to that illusion if you wish. It is certainly your right. Anyone can call themselves anything they wish. But you cannot actually show the existence of this "absolute/objective" moral framework and nothing about what you do and how you function supports your claim.

And you can not know that universal ethics don't exist. But you are free to believe that child rape is only relatively wrong...

[Sparko]

This is just one of the techniques of the left, to pretend that words and context don't have a specific meaning - that it is all open to interpretation. If I took that attitude with your writing Carp, you would rightly call foul.

I interpret Carp's posts to be saying that we are entirely correct. That morals are objective after all, and God is fully in charge.

there be.. a god...and... such a being...make[s] morality "absolute/objective"

That was easy.

[seer]

I interpret Carp's posts to be saying that we are entirely correct. That morals are objective after all, and God is fully in charge.

He is being dishonest, if we followed his logic we could never know history. What Lincoln said or Washington said, Plato, the history of The Gallic Wars would be complete gibberish in Carp's world.

That was easy.

Funny, we "interpret" him the same! So that is two against one - we win...

[Mountain Man]

He is being dishonest, if we followed his logic we could never know history. What Lincoln said or Washington said, Plato, the history of The Gallic Wars would be complete gibberish in Carp's world.

A classic example of "that which proves too much, proves nothing".

[Sparko]

He is being dishonest, if we followed his logic we could never know history. What Lincoln said or Washington said, Plato, the history of The Gallic Wars would be complete gibberish in Carp's world.



Funny, we "interpret" him the same! So that is two against one - we win...

Biblical scholars take great pains to study not only the language of the time, but the society and customs, so they understand the idioms, "slang" and context of the time. They use all of that to translate the texts. So yeah, we know not only what the books of the bible said, but what the authors meant. It is not a great mystery. There are a few difficult passages, but none that hit on anything important.

[seer]

Biblical scholars take great pains to study not only the language of the time, but the society and customs, so they understand the idioms, "slang" and context of the time. They use all of that to translate the texts. So yeah, we know not only what the books of the bible said, but what the authors meant. It is not a great mystery. There are a few difficult passages, but none that hit on anything important.

I would have no problem if Carp said he doesn't believe that the Bible is inspired or that he disagrees with the homosexuality being sin thing, but this kind of subterfuge is just dishonest.

[Sparko]

I would have no problem if Carp said he doesn't believe that the Bible is inspired or that he disagrees with the homosexuality being sin thing, but this kind of subterfuge is just dishonest.

Yeah but Carp has been redefining words since he got here. It's what he does. Makes it easier to wiggle out of things when he says something he shouldn't have. Like when he said pregnancy was putting the mother into slavery? Then had to back out and redefine various terms?

[carpedm9587]

Pure bull Carp, we know exactly what the Biblical writers meant by man having sex with men and women have sex with women. You are being dishonest.

Yeah, you guys like to go there a lot...

More nonsense Carp, you can not demonstrate (logically or empirically) that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality. You take that completely by faith - if you think otherwise debate me on the Philosophy board, you will lose. The Bible is the single most influential book of human history, and the Christ of the Bible the single most influential person of human history. What do you have Carp? Your own twisted, finite reasoning, void of all the necessary facts?

So your faith is based on the bible being a best seller and Jesus of Nazareth having influenced more people than anyone else? And then you get your pants in a knot when someone appeals to "majority?" What on earth is THAT but an appeal to majority. Sorry, Seer, but the world has been filled with many great thinkers, with many great ideas, and there are many things worth considering. To surrender your freedom of thought and reasoning to one collection of books and one of those thinkers is an unfortunate narrowing of perspective, IMO. And, at the end of the day, each of us has only what each of us finds to be true. You think what you think is "the truth." I think what I think is "the truth." Neither one of us has a superior claim on "proving reality." I just have a wider scope of input than you, and I do not lock myself into "the bible says it - so it must be so."

And you can not know that universal ethics don't exist. But you are free to believe that child rape is only relatively wrong...

As per previous discussions, I don't think any of can "know" anything with 100% certainty. But I certainly am not going to hook my philosophical wagon to a claim no one can show to be true. I'm going to look around, see how things happen, and work from there. And when someone comes to me and says, "I'm right - I have the absolute truth," I'm going to nod politely and say, Isn't that nice." If they want to discuss, I'm happy to share with them (you) why I'm not going to go there. And then you are more than welcome to continue on your way. It certainly is not a thing I am anxious to get back to.