Homophobic Trump...

[seer]

Where have I or Seer ever made claims to moral certainty?

I did say that and I believe it, via God's law...

[carpedm9587]

The only thing keeping people in check is the law and consequences Carp. And judging by the way they just legalized abortion up to even live birth I say the law is not really much help in some areas.

You cannot even BEGIN to make that case. And I note you did not respond to most of that post. You and Seer keep making these wild statements which you do not even live by yourselves - and then expect to have your arguments taken seriously? Sorry, Sparko - I think I have shown several ways in which we can objectively assess that people are generally good - and generally aligned on moral fundamentals. You have just made wild, unsubstantiated assertions.

Where have I or Seer ever made claims to moral certainty? This is you making up our argument for us again so you can burn a straw man.

Seer most definitely has explicitly said this. And you said below, "I can trust what it says on morals 100%" I am not "making up strawmen," Sparko. That is your habit. I reflect back what you say. There have been a few times when I have erred - and I have acknowledged them when you have pointed them out. Most of the time you are pointing out errors and incoonsistencies that have nothing to do with what I said.

So you think the bible is accurate then?

I did not say that either. What I HAVE said is that the situation with respect to the bible leaves us no mechanism for reliably assessing its accuracy. I have no basis for saying "it's not accurate" and you have no basis for saying it is. And by "accuracy" I mean that the copies we have are consistent with the original writings. There's a whole other "accuracy" that has to do with reflecting reality. I accept the claim "the bible accurately reflects the religious beliefs of its authors" as "most probably true." Any claim that "the bible accurately provides a historical record of what happened" is a mixed bag. There are some historical elements in the bible that have been reasonably well substantiated (i.e., Maccabees). The bible also contains a great deal of mythology, legend, poetry, and theology that has nothing to do with history except to tell us what myths, legends, poetic styles, and theological concepts were prevalent in that age and region.

I already told you that you need to study Textual Criticism. We have so many manuscripts from the NT for example that we can reliably reconstruct the original from those manuscripts and fragments. And again I never claimed certainty.

I have studied textual criticism, Sparko. Most people who hitch their wagons to that "pseudo science" give it far more weight than I think it merits. Text criticism remains "best guess." All of history is "best guess," with the degree of certainty waxing and waning depending on the volume and type of evidence. When the historical statements are "X happened," and there is sufficient corroborating evidence, we can be "reasonably sure." When it is "X thought Y" or "X did Y because of Z," our certainty plummets. And textual criticism can never discern an error that creeped into the writings from the very first copies - because those errors would tend to replicate throughout the fragments. It's "best guess" with wildly varying levels of confidence from segment to segment of ANY historical documents.

So when the Old Testament Law given by God says Homosexuality is sinful... you do the math.

Interesting. When the moral principle or law in the OT aligns with what you want to believe - you cite the OT as handed down by god. But when it doesn't, and calls for you to commit atrocities, you cite the NT as obviating the OT. That's very convenient - and fairly irrational. And, as I said, you are following a god you cannot show exists, a set of moral codes you pick and choose from, as written down by men you can't identify, copied by countless hands you do not know, and translated by still others.

ETA: I am not going to change this paragraph, because I wrote it. But I DO want to acknowledge that I just did what I have been pointing out (and objecting) that you do. I have told you about what you "want" in this statement. I cannot know what you "want," so that was poorly worded on my art and I apologize. This statement SHOULD have read:

Interesting. You and Seer appear to be selective abut the moral principles or laws in the OT that you accept. Some you accept - others you reject as "obviated by the NT law." There does not appear to be any rhyme or reason to this selectivity. I do note that when it aligns with a moral position you claim to accept - you cite the OT. When it runs counter to a moral position you claim to accept - you tend to reject the OT in favor of the NT. When you agree with it, it's true because "god said it." When you don't, it untrue because (apparently) god changed his mind? And, as I said, you are following a god you cannot show exists, a set of moral codes you pick and choose from, as written down by men you can't identify, copied by countless hands you do not know, and translated by still others.

What I think you are doing is my subjective view of what I see you doing. That is not a lie. I truly believe what I am saying. I don't even think you realize what you are doing sometimes. It is so bizarre. But I am not lying. So stop accusing me of it. READ OUR RULES.

When you make the statement, "you are selectively choosing your argument to arrive at your conclusions post factum" you are making a statement about my inner process - which you cannot know. I have repeatedly related to you what my inner process is: I begin with what I value - apply reason - and arrive at conclusions. If it is a moral position I already hold, that process will lead me to either affirm the position (random killing is wrong) or reject the position (homosexuality is wrong). I have done this since I was able to reason.

Your statement is a claim of fact about a process you cannot know about - but I can. I have told you what my process is. If you continue to repeat the claim in the presence of that situation - then you are continuing to put forward a lie - for whatever reasons you have. Either stop doing so - or be prepared to be called out for lying. A repeated claim whose truth you cannot possibly know, in the face of testimony from someone who can, is a lie. Period. Deal with it. And if your "rules" say I cannot call someone who is explicitly lying out for doing so - then your rules are wrong.

Then get used to being moderated.

Its your site. Do what you wish. I think people will generally see the reality. The issue is simple, Sprako - stop making claims about my thoughts, motivations, likes, wants, and so forth that you cannot substantiate - and then continue to repeat those claims over and over despite testimony from the ONE person who CAN know that you are mistaken. Or kick me out. Your choice. But I'm not going to stop calling out a lie for a lie.

I have no idea what donation you made but if you want it back I will give it back, just PM me and let me know. And nobody said anything about kicking you off.

ETA: I just looked through the paypal receipts and could not find any donations by you going back to 2016. Did you donate under a different name?

I don't want the bloody donation, Sparko. I donated it because I am here and I think people who are here should contribute their fair share. The donation was made last year or late the year before for $200.

What I want is for you to show a bit of the ethical spine you claim to have. Stop making unsubstantiated claims about my motivations, likes, thoughts, wants, etc. Ask me about them, or ask me if X is motivating me and I will be happy to answer you. When you tell me what is happening inside me - and refuse to accept my response about something I can know and you cannot possibly - then you wander into the territory of continually repeating falsehoods. If you do it - expect to be called on it.

Someones opinion is not a lie. It is their opinion.

Someone's opinion about what is happening in another person's mind stated as a fact and continually repeated, even when the person in question responds and corrects, is a lie. Period. You have absolutely no way of knowing if I start at my conclusion, assemble a set of arguments, and then "create premises" - or if I examine my premises, apply reason, and arrive at rational conclusions. I know which I am doing, and it is the latter. Continually repeating the former as a FACT when you cannot know and I have told you what I actually do crosses into lying.

So then you believe the bible to be completely accurate then. Great. Then your objection about certainty (which I never claimed) is dismissed.

Wow. Way to put words in someone's mouth and then knock them back down. I guess I should expect this from you. Your previous attempts to engage in reasoned discussions about taxes and genetics demonstrated that you struggle with accurately reflecting what other people have said/claimed, and forming a rational argument around or against them. You don't even remember what you yourself have posted.

a) The comments above are my first about biblical accuracy in this discussion, and show that the best I can say is "I don't know." Neither do you.
b) I have quoted your claim about your 100% level of confidence in the moral precepts of the bible (above)

So this entire response, on your part, is a flight of fancy of some kind. Really Sparko - it is VERY hard to have a rational discussion with you. I spend more time correcting your misperceptions of what I say. When you point to a place where I have misrepresented you - I look at it and acknowledge it if I actually have (see previous posts). If I haven't, I explain why I don't see it as a misperception. When you are explicitly told "you are not accurately reflecting what I said," you "do a Trump" and double-down that you somehow know better what I have said and what I mean than I do.

It's amazing.

So can I claim you are lying about me following the herd then?

No. It is not a lie. I am not telling you what you are thinking. I am reflecting back to you what you are doing and the consequences of your choice/position. So here's the line of reasoning.

1) The bible was written by a few dozen men who lived in the ANE (this is "the herd" I am referring to - and this is a fairly well documented fact)
2) The bible sets forward moral precepts. (this seems self evident - and both you and Seer have made this observation)
3) Sparko determines if a thing is moral or immoral by consulting the bible to see what it says. (You have acknowledged this on multiple occasions - so has Seer)

Ergo - Sparko is following the herd with his morality. He is doing what these men say should be done - which is "following the herd."

If you can show me which statement above is incorrect, or how the logic is faulty, and I continue to insist your moral decision making is based on "following the herd" in the face of that demonstration - then you can accuse me (correctly) of lying.

[carpedm9587]

I did say that and I believe it, via God's law...

Which fails before it even begins, Seer. You simply cannot sustain this position. Your views are incredibly full of self-contradictions. But you cannot even begin to see any of them because the process is not a rational one.

[seer]

"Universal" moral truths exist to the degree that there is alignment between individuals. In other words, "random killing is wrong" appears to be a "universal moral truth" for no other reason than it is almost universely accepted as a moral norm. It is not so widely accepted because it is some "law of morality" in the sense that there is a "law of noncontradiction" (in reason) or "law of gravitation" in physics.

Well we would differ as to why there is an "almost" universal moral truth.

And your process leads you to reject homosexuality. And to accept male dominance as "good." You are assessing everything from the perspective of "gulags" and ignoring that you hold positions many of us consider "immoral" and defend them, just as the Maoist defends their gulags. When you make this comment, I find myself noting, "and somehow you think you're better than the Maoist?"

Yes and yes. So what? I mean really Carp, in the whole scheme of things we are just a bunch of ants arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

It is better for the reasons I have cited now numerous times: it provides a mechanism for evaluating moral outcomes. You can only blindly swallow "what the herd wants." If your bible contained a moral defense of gulags, you would be arguing with me that gulags are moral. If the bible contained a justification for jihad, you would be arguing with me that jihad is moral. You cannot assess the moral outcomes themselves - or even look for consistency between moral outcomes. You can only blindly swallow and blindly follow.

Actually Carp, it really doesn't. One has to first accept another's subjective premises, then reasoning then naturally follows. That is where the sticking point is, not in the following syllogisms. And those premises, as you noted, can come from all sorts of places. And they are usually based in what just seems right to you.

And frankly, your bible contains MANY moral prescriptions for many amazingly bad things. And you are not following all of them. You and those like you have found ways to rationalize picking and choosing moral positions and ignoring the ones that you (presumably) deem "truly horrendous." You will quote the OT for moral guidance when it suits you, and then explain that the "new law obviates the old law" when it doesn't. Your moral process is such a mixed bag of random selection, it lacks even basic common sense.

Amazingly bad things to whom - you? And since you have claimed to be a Christian in the past you know that much of the Mosaic law was particular to the theocracy of Israel, and that Christians follow the moral code found in the New Testament.

[seer]

Which fails before it even begins, Seer. You simply cannot sustain this position. Your views are incredibly full of self-contradictions. But you cannot even begin to see any of them because the process is not a rational one.

What contradiction?

[carpedm9587]

What contradiction?

The claim to "certainty" in the face of the reality concerning the bible and your claim of the role of "sinfulness."

[carpedm9587]

Well we would differ as to why there is an "almost" universal moral truth.

Yes, we would. The difference is, you cannot substantiate your "reason."

Yes and yes. So what?

The "so what" has been repeatedly underscored. You lack any mechanism for assessing consistency between moral positions, evaluating the positions in terms of effect or consequence. You can only blindly follow. That is the reason your process is inferior. I strongly suspect that in no other aspect of your life would you defend the position "following the herd is better than thinking for myself." But you make an exception here - for reasons you cannot demonstrate to be true.

I mean really Carp, in the whole scheme of things we are just a bunch of ants arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

In the whole scheme of things, we are sentient beings seeking to make decisions as to how to conduct our lives.

Actually Carp, it really doesn't.

Actually - it does, Seer. You cannot rationally support this claim.

One has to first accept another's subjective premises, then reasoning then naturally follows.

Any individual can ensure that their moral choices align with their valuing, because they use reason (assuming they use it correctly). They can also assess differing moral conclusions for consistency in the framework. And they have a mechanism by which their moral reasoning can be assessed, challenged, and discussed/debated by other individuals. Your approach lacks all of these.

• You cannot logically associate your moral conclusions with your underlying values: your only metric is "what does the book say."
• You cannot examine different moral conclusions in your own moral framework for consistency: your only metric is "what does the book say? If the book contains inconsistencies, you will swallow them blindly.
• You cannot examine your moral conclusions with anyone except someone who agree with you. You cannot engage in a rational discussion about moral outcomes, or have your logic sanity-checked, or even challenged - because you do not use reason/logic to arrive at your conclusions. "What does the book say" is all you can respond.

That is where the sticking point is, not in the following syllogisms. And those premises, as you noted, can come from all sorts of places. And they are usually based in what just seems right to you.

What we value is ALWAYS "what seems good (not right) to us." We would not value it if we did not perceive it as good. But you cannot engage in ANY rational discussion about morality, Seer. Premises have no place in your moral world. Syllogism have no place. You have one and only one metric: "what does the book say?" And then you pad your comfort by claiming absolute moral certitude, which defies ANY rational explanation. You cannot even make this claim and remain consistent in your own worldview.

Amazingly bad things to whom - you?

Yes - to me. To most living humans. Even to most Christians. Indeed - to you as well.

And since you have claimed to be a Christian in the past you know that much of the Mosaic law was particular to the theocracy of Israel, and that Christians follow the moral code found in the New Testament.

I've heard this rationalization before. Yet Christians continue to cite passages in the OT to justify their moral positions - unless, of course, it's for what is generally accepted as a truly atrocious moral position (i.e., stoning people for adultery, genocide, etc.). Then, suddenly, "what god said" is chucked out. And now you add the suggestion that your god actually has multiple "absolute" and "objective" moral positions - apparently separated by nation or theocracy. Or perhaps this god changed his mind? So much for absolute. It just went down the toilet with your "moral certainty."

[Sparko]

unsubscribing.

[seer]

Yes, we would. The difference is, you cannot substantiate your "reason."

And what is your reason? A series of random mutations in lucky ecological niches that just happened to develop us morally as we are today?

The "so what" has been repeatedly underscored. You lack any mechanism for assessing consistency between moral positions, evaluating the positions in terms of effect or consequence. You can only blindly follow. That is the reason your process is inferior. I strongly suspect that in no other aspect of your life would you defend the position "following the herd is better than thinking for myself." But you make an exception here - for reasons you cannot demonstrate to be true.

My moral position is quite consistent, especially with the consequences of violating the law of God. Again Carp, you have not offered anything better since your process can equally lead to the murder of dissidents.

In the whole scheme of things, we are sentient beings seeking to make decisions as to how to conduct our lives.

So, ants...

Actually - it does, Seer. You cannot rationally support this claim.

Prove what claim? That you begin with subjective premises and that if another doesn't accept those premises you have no agreement?

Any individual can ensure that their moral choices align with their valuing, because they use reason (assuming they use it correctly). They can also assess differing moral conclusions for consistency in the framework. And they have a mechanism by which their moral reasoning can be assessed, challenged, and discussed/debated by other individuals. Your approach lacks all of these.

• You cannot logically associate your moral conclusions with your underlying values: your only metric is "what does the book say."
• You cannot examine different moral conclusions in your own moral framework for consistency: your only metric is "what does the book say? If the book contains inconsistencies, you will swallow them blindly.
• You cannot examine your moral conclusions with anyone except someone who agree with you. You cannot engage in a rational discussion about moral outcomes, or have your logic sanity-checked, or even challenged - because you do not use reason/logic to arrive at your conclusions. "What does the book say" is all you can respond.

That is just silly Carp, since I begin with Scripture, as a Christian it logically follows that I should follow it. And again as we have seen your "logic" is self-serving, continually being framed for the ends your desire. And in the end your process only tells us what you ultimately prefer. No meaning except for you. And how do you argue with some one who does not share your premises. Please...

What we value is ALWAYS "what seems good (not right) to us." We would not value it if we did not perceive it as good. But you cannot engage in ANY rational discussion about morality, Seer. Premises have no place in your moral world. Syllogism have no place. You have one and only one metric: "what does the book say?" And then you pad your comfort by claiming absolute moral certitude, which defies ANY rational explanation. You cannot even make this claim and remain consistent in your own worldview.

And you have what? The morass of moral and cultural relativity where we invent our syllogism to prove how superior we are? Ants...

Yes - to me. To most living humans. Even to most Christians. Indeed - to you as well.

Appealing to the majority again?

I've heard this rationalization before. Yet Christians continue to cite passages in the OT to justify their moral positions - unless, of course, it's for what is generally accepted as a truly atrocious moral position (i.e., stoning people for adultery, genocide, etc.). Then, suddenly, "what god said" is chucked out. And now you add the suggestion that your god actually has multiple "absolute" and "objective" moral positions - apparently separated by nation or theocracy. Or perhaps this god changed his mind? So much for absolute. It just went down the toilet with your "moral certainty."

These are not rationalizations Carp, you can find this in the New Testament, that Christians are no longer under Mosaic law, i.e, civil law. Of course being a good Christian in the past you knew that. And I don't see anything immoral with God destroying sinners in the OT. After all the future hell is exactly that.

[carpedm9587]

unsubscribing.

I would say that's a wise choice.

And this time, that glare is NOT meant humorously. As I said to Sparko in a PM, I find myself, for one of the few times this has happened on TWeb, actually ticked off. Apparently, the norm of TWeb is that a mod can say anything they wish about someone else - their motivations - their likes - their wants - their internal processes. They can paint them in any negative light they wish and, when called on it, they can "pull the mod card" and hide behind "you can't prove me wrong." And this is from the vaunted "lords of absolute/objective morality as handed down by god." If it wasn't so irritating, it would be laughable.

I work hard to understand what people have said - to respond without resorting to personal attacks - and to frame my arguments reasonably and rationally. I work so hard at it I get far too wordy more often than I don't. Over time I've been called a hypocrite, lacking in self-reflection, not that bright, and the list goes on. Mostly, I ignore the ad homs and personal jibes and try to stay focused on the arguments. When I make mistakes of reasoning, or slip in my language - I try to own it.

But this entire exchange is bordering on the ludicrous. And the behavior smacks of petulance. Here's the adult version:

Challenger: You appear to be framing your argument to achieve your desired results, working backwards from conclusion to premises, which is not a very good process.
Responder: Actually I don't. While I may already hold a moral position to which I apply reason, the purpose of applying reason is to start from the premises and arrive at a conclusion. If the conclusion I reach is the same as the position I already hold, then the conclusion is validated. If the conclusion I reach is different, or the argument cannot affirm the position I already hold, I let go of the position, or modify it as indicated by the argument.
Challenger: I have no way of knowing the truth of this, so I guess I'll accept your report. I do think there is a risk of "reasoning to justify positions" here. You might want to keep that in mind.
Responder: Understood, and a reasonable warning.

I suggest you read this quickly. Based on PMs, it apparently has a significant chance of being "modded."

[seer]

The claim to "certainty" in the face of the reality concerning the bible and your claim of the role of "sinfulness."

Except I believe that God can and does over come that sinfulness to impart truths.

[carpedm9587]

And what is your reason? A series of random mutations in lucky ecological niches that just happened to develop us morally as we are today?

I have not thought through the link between evolution and morality. At first blush, it makes sense that if our entire being is the product of evolution, then morality is likewise a product of that process. If that is true, then we will tend to be wired to arrive at moral positions that enhance survivability. The problem is the typical nature/nurture discussion. I tend to think our ABILITY to moralize is likely driven by evolution. The specific moral conclusions we reach are not just related to evolution - but are also strongly influenced by experiential influences.

My moral position is quite consistent, especially with the consequences of violating the law of God. Again Carp, you have not offered anything better since your process can equally lead to the murder of dissidents.

Claiming consistency and showing consistency are not the same thing. You can claim it all day long. You cannot show it. Indeed, you claim moral certitude and cannot even show that position to be consistent with other views. I have shown this many times.

1) How do you know what the absolute/objective moral framework is?
2) It's documented in the bible with 100% accuracy
3) How do you know your interpretation is correct?
4) It is self-evident from the bible
5) Then why are there so many differing views on what this "absolute/objective" moral framework and so many people claiming 100% certitude for different interpretations?
6) Because of sin.
7) Are you a sinful person?
8) We are all sinful in the eyes of god
9) So how do you know it is not YOUR sinfulness that is leading you to misinterpret this absolute/objective framework?

The argument ends in an inconsistency. You cannot have or show 100% certitude - even within your own worldview.

So, ants...

How you choose to see yourself is your concern, Seer.

Prove what claim?

Pretty much any that you have made:

1) That you can have 100% moral certainty
2) That the god you believe in exists
3) That your moral positions are consistent with one another
4) That the bible documents the one, true, absolute/objective moral framework.

That you begin with subjective premises and that if another doesn't accept those premises you have no agreement?

Moral disagreement exists, period. You cannot even cite moral agreement in your "absolute/objective" worldview given that there are demonstrable, competing and conflicting "absolute/objective" frameworks.

That is just silly Carp, since I begin with Scripture, as a Christian it logically follows that I should follow it. And again as we have seen your "logic" is self-serving, continually being framed for the ends your desire.

Like Sparko, you seem dedicated to the proposition that you are going to continually repeat this lie - so again I call you on it. You are making a claim whose truth value you cannot know. YOu have testimony from the one person who CAN know that this is not my process. Continuing to repeat something you cannot know to be true in the face of the only evidence available that it is NOT true is no different that promulgating a lie.

And in the end your process only tells us what you ultimately prefer. No meaning except for you.

Yes - morality is about moral preference - so you are complaining, again, that green is not blue. We already know moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective. Again - so what?

And how do you argue with some one who does not share your premises. Please...

The exact same way you do - I don't. If our premises do not align, then no amount of reasoning will bring us to the same moral conclusion. So we ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. Which is exactly what YOU do, Seer. When someone rejects your premise that "the bible is the absolute/objective moral authority," you likewise cannot necessarily get to any moral alignment. Even when they DO agree with your premises - you are not necessarily going to get to moral alignment - which is evident all around us. You call it "sin" (which also defeats your claims to moral certitude). So here is how our worlds compare Seer:

For Carp:

If our premises align, we can use reason to align our conclusions, eliminating the need to ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.
If our premises do not align, we cannot use reason to align our moral conclusions, leaving us with the need to ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

For Seer:

If our premises align, we cannot use reason to align our conclusions, leaving us with the need to ignore, isolate/separate, or contend (if we happen to differently interpret what the bible says)
If our premises do not align, we cannot use reason to align our moral conclusions, leaving us with the need to ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

So you and the Episcopalians have conflicting moral views on homosexuality. You have no means for reconciling - each see the other as wrong, so you have isolated into separate sects, each claiming to have "THE truth." Christianity (and all religions) are replete with this behavior.

And you have what?

A rational process for reasoning to moral conclusions.

The morass of moral and cultural relativity where we invent our syllogism to prove how superior we are? Ants...

Which is exactly what you have, Seer. Christianity has the same morass of conflicting points of view. You have no less variation in your moral outcomes than the rest of the world.You have had these variations throughout history. For all of your objection to "moral morass," Christianity has itself been in the "moral morass" from the dawn of the religion.

Appealing to the majority again?

Wow - you and Sparko do like to continually hammer away at interpretations of my words that have nothing to do with anything I have said. So this discussion went as follows:

Carpe) Your bible contains MANY moral prescriptions for many amazingly bad things.
Seer) Amazingly bad things to whom - you?
Carpe) Yes - to me. To most living humans. Even to most Christians. Indeed - to you as well.
Seer) Appealing to the majority again?

So, once again, for those who seem to be having a difficulty with some basic understanding...

a) I was answering a question you asked and identifying who finds these things to be amazingly bad.
b) There is a significant difference between listing people who find something to be bad in response to a question, and believing it is bad because a lot of people believe it. The latter is "appealing to the majority." The former is not.

Really, Seer - do you actually find this kind of response to be useful? You have to know by now that my morality has nothing to do with "appealing to the majority" and I have never once said anything to suggest or imply that "X is right because most people think it is right."

These are not rationalizations Carp, you can find this in the New Testament, that Christians are no longer under Mosaic law, i.e, civil law. Of course being a good Christian in the past you knew that. And I don't see anything immoral with God destroying sinners in the OT. After all the future hell is exactly that.

And yet what you are left with is moral proscriptions that hold for one group and not for another, that hold in one time and not in another. God apparently "changed his mind" or "changed his rules." And then you ask me how your worldview is inconsistent? Really?

Seer) I believe in absolute/objective moral truths that I have 100% certainty in, but sin keeps us from clearly seeing/understanding/agreeing on these moral truths.
Seer) I believe in absolute/objective moral truths that can change from context to context and time period to time period

And then you wonder why I find your position internally inconsistent?

Face it, Seer. You are functionally a subjective/relative moralizer - just like the rest of humanity. You simply have relinquished any effort to think for yourself and hitched your moral wagon to the moral writings to the translated version of the copies of copies of copies of a small group of men who lived/wrote 2000-3500 years ago and whose original works are lost. Despite all of that, you claim absolute certitude on the basis of a magical supreme being you cannot show to exist.

And you think this is going to seem "reasonable" to someone? That someone will definitely not be me.

[ke7ejx]

Get off your high horse, Carpe. Your passive aggressive tendencies and hypocrisy is unbecoming.

[carpedm9587]

Except I believe that God can and does over come that sinfulness to impart truths.

So please explain the variation in moral frameworks between Christian sects, and the insistence by individual sects with opposing views that they each "have it right." Why is god not overcoming this "sinfulness" to align moral frameworks to his absolute/objective norm?

This is more "magical thinking" Seer. And it does not align with observed reality.

[Littlejoe]

I would say that's a wise choice.

And this time, that glare is NOT meant humorously. As I said to Sparko in a PM, I find myself, for one of the few times this has happened on TWeb, actually ticked off. Apparently, the norm of TWeb is that a mod can say anything they wish about someone else - their motivations - their likes - their wants - their internal processes. They can paint them in any negative light they wish and, when called on it, they can "pull the mod card" and hide behind "you can't prove me wrong." And this is from the vaunted "lords of absolute/objective morality as handed down by god." If it wasn't so irritating, it would be laughable.

I work hard to understand what people have said - to respond without resorting to personal attacks - and to frame my arguments reasonably and rationally. I work so hard at it I get far too wordy more often than I don't. Over time I've been called a hypocrite, lacking in self-reflection, not that bright, and the list goes on. Mostly, I ignore the ad homs and personal jibes and try to stay focused on the arguments. When I make mistakes of reasoning, or slip in my language - I try to own it.

But this entire exchange is bordering on the ludicrous. And the behavior smacks of petulance. Here's the adult version:

Challenger: You appear to be framing your argument to achieve your desired results, working backwards from conclusion to premises, which is not a very good process.
Responder: Actually I don't. While I may already hold a moral position to which I apply reason, the purpose of applying reason is to start from the premises and arrive at a conclusion. If the conclusion I reach is the same as the position I already hold, then the conclusion is validated. If the conclusion I reach is different, or the argument cannot affirm the position I already hold, I let go of the position, or modify it as indicated by the argument.
Challenger: I have no way of knowing the truth of this, so I guess I'll accept your report. I do think there is a risk of "reasoning to justify positions" here. You might want to keep that in mind.
Responder: Understood, and a reasonable warning.

I suggest you read this quickly. Based on PMs, it apparently has a significant chance of being "modded."

If it gets modded, it will be because you are arguing moderation in the Thread. That's against the rules. You can argue moderation to your hearts content by PM or taking it to the Padded Room. I'm not a mod for this area so, it's not up to me.