Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[seer]

“Moral relativism” is equally the case in a “godly” universe - morality has always varied over time in every culture. For example, owning slaves was assumed to be morally correct for centuries by Christian societies. It was even justified by scripture. It is no longer; today it is considered morally wrong.

That is false Tass, theists are not moral relativists. What we accept or don't accept has no bearing on universal moral truths. They exist whether we follow them or rightly understand them or not. And something is not morally wrong just because we happen to see it that way today. That is why as a moral relativist you could never mount an argument as to why it is morally wrong. Apart from the fact that you happened to be born in a time and culture that sees it as wrong. You follow the crowd.

[seer]

The argument is that “treating women like chattel” undermines today’s social values.” This is in the context of morality varying from culture to culture over time, which is the argument.

Nonsense Tass, I showed clearly where you tied rape to survival of the species. And that is a stupid argument.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, and racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations”. Wiki. The intent is clear as was recognized in 2015 when the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. In short, same-sex marriage is recognized by the state and by implication by the population as well.

Where did the CRA prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation?

[Tassman]

That is false Tass, theists are not moral relativists.

Demonstrably Christians are moral relativists and have been throughout history

What we accept or don't accept has no bearing on universal moral truths. They exist whether we follow them or rightly understand them or not. And something is not morally wrong just because we happen to see it that way today. That is why as a moral relativist you could never mount an argument as to why it is morally wrong. Apart from the fact that you happened to be born in a time and culture that sees it as wrong. You follow the crowd.

Just as historically Christians have followed the crowd and justified their position with selected quotes from scripture – as was the case with slavery, racial segregation, witch-killing and the subjugation of women etc. You like to claim that Christians lead the way in changing social values but in fact they are usually dragged kicking and screaming into accepting them.

[seer]

Demonstrably Christians are moral relativists and have been throughout history

How can people who believe in universal moral truths be relativists? If you say we don't always practice what we preach or believe, fine, but that is not the question.

Just as historically Christians have followed the crowd and justified their position with selected quotes from scripture – as was the case with slavery, racial segregation, witch-killing and the subjugation of women etc. You like to claim that Christians lead the way in changing social values but in fact they are usually dragged kicking and screaming into accepting them.

No Tass, some Christians believe this or that. I will ask you again - what do I believe that is contrary to Scripture?

[JimL]

But of course we say God is Good, unchangeably so. I'm not sure what your point is. That God at times destroys sinners? Like we destroyed Germans and Japanese to save the world? Or ISIS to stop their rampage? How was that not good?

We killed soldiers in battle, not the intentional murder and or enslavement of women and children. Is that good just because "god says so." That's just dumb or biased thinking, seer.

[seer]

We killed soldiers in battle, not the intentional murder and or enslavement of women and children. Is that good just because "god says so." That's just dumb or biased thinking, seer.

First of all Jim, in WW2 we did not just kill soldiers, we intentionally targeted population centers - like Tokyo and Dresden. And if God doesn't say so who does? The Nazis? The Commies? The Hutu? You?

[Tassman]

How can people who believe in universal moral truths be relativists?

Christians may not "believe" in relativism but in practice they demonstrably do.

If you say we don't always practice what we preach or believe, fine, but that is not the question.

Most Christians believe they practice what they preach even when it means recanting earlier positions, e.g. as the SBC did in 1995 on racism and slavery.

No Tass, some Christians believe this or that. I will ask you again - what do I believe that is contrary to Scripture?

No doubt you like to think ALL your beliefs align to scripture. But many other Christians disagree with you and cite scripture to support their beliefs.

[seer]

Christians may not "believe" in relativism but in practice they demonstrably do.

Tass, that does not mean that we are relativists it means we are sinful and often to not live up to the Gospel.

Most Christians believe they practice what they preach even when it means recanting earlier positions, e.g. as the SBC did in 1995 on racism and slavery.

Again, not following or even not rightly understanding universal moral truths does not mean that they don't exist or that Christians are relativists.

No doubt you like to think ALL your beliefs align to scripture. But many other Christians disagree with you and cite scripture to support their beliefs.

All I can do if follow the teachings of Christ and the New Testament as best I can and understand. Every man is individually responsible for that. You have the bad habit of broad brushing all Christians, when in your world things like racism are merely the instinctive outcome of biological evolution. Perfectly natural.

[Tassman]

Tass, that does not mean that we are relativists it means we are sinful and often to not live up to the Gospel.

Yes, it does mean you are relativists and you support your beliefs with quotes from scripture – just as the Christian slave-owners did.

Again, not following or even not rightly understanding universal moral truths does not mean that they don't exist or that Christians are relativists.

Except that “rightly understanding universal moral truths” has demonstrably varied from culture to culture over time.

All I can do if follow the teachings of Christ and the New Testament as best I can and understand.

As do the many other Christians who disagree with you and cite scripture to support their beliefs about the teachings of Christ and the New Testament as best as they can understand. It’s always awkward when one person’s ‘objective truths’ clash with another person’s ‘objective truths’ - especially when they both come from the same gospel.

in your world things like racism are merely the instinctive outcome of biological evolution.

The same applies to your world except that you attempt to justify “things like racism” with scripture.

[seer]

Yes, it does mean you are relativists and you support your beliefs with quotes from scripture – just as the Christian slave-owners did.

No Tass, it means I try and understand scripture in context and follow it. And sometimes lust and selfishness taint my (our) understanding.

Except that “rightly understanding universal moral truths” has demonstrably varied from culture to culture over time.

Again that has no bearing on whether universal truths exist or not. That still does not make us moral relativists. We believe that there exists such truths to be searched for, to move towards. Relativists have no such universal moral goals. Since conceptually no such goal exists.

As do the many other Christians who disagree with you and cite scripture to support their beliefs about the teachings of Christ and the New Testament as best as they can understand. It’s always awkward when one person’s ‘objective truths’ clash with another person’s ‘objective truths’ - especially when they both come from the same gospel.

Adultery it is a universal moral wrong? Who disagrees with that? And if a Christian does how will he justify that position from Scripture?

The same applies to your world except that you attempt to justify “things like racism” with scripture.

You keep saying this - where does Scripture justify racism? Be specific please.

[Tassman]

No Tass, it means I try and understand scripture in context and follow it.

Surely this is true of ALL Christians, including during the many centuries when slave ownership was justified by scripture.

Again that has no bearing on whether universal truths exist or not.

It has total bearing on “whether universal truths exist or not” given that Christians have demonstrably adopted contradictory moral values over time.

That still does not make us moral relativists. We believe that there exists such truths to be searched for, to move towards.

Keep searching for your ‘universal moral truths’ then, you clearly have a way to go.

Relativists have no such universal moral goals. Since conceptually no such goal exists

Conceptually, in practice, ALL humans are a product of the evolution of necessary social behavior to survive as cooperative social animals.

Adultery it is a universal moral wrong? Who disagrees with that? And if a Christian does how will he justify that position from Scripture?

Is “adultery a universal moral wrong”? And yet many practicing Christians remarry in Christian churches today, despite their previous partner(s) being alive, which was once seen as adultery.

You keep saying this - where does Scripture justify racism? Be specific please.

In the same passages that many Christians justified slavery – necessitating an apology from the SBC in 1995. “The Southern Baptist Convention issued an apology for its earlier stance on slavery. The issue had split the Baptist church between north and south in 1845. But a century and a half later, in 1995, Southern Baptist officials formally renounced the church's support of slavery and segregation”.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...ryId=112329862

[seer]

Surely this is true of ALL Christians, including during the many centuries when slave ownership was justified by scripture.

No Tass, it is not true of all Christians. And Scripture does not condone nor condemn slavery.

It has total bearing on “whether universal truths exist or not” given that Christians have demonstrably adopted contradictory moral values over time.

That makes no sense. When humans did not understand the laws of logic, or when they do not follow the laws of logic (like the non-sequitur that you are using here) does that mean that said laws are not universal?

Keep searching for your ‘universal moral truths’ then, you clearly have a way to go.

Thou shall not steal, lie, murder, - follow the golden rule, love ones neighbor, help those in need, etc... Even if we practice these things badly they still remain universal truths. An option that is not available to the Atheist.

Conceptually, in practice, ALL humans are a product of the evolution of necessary social behavior to survive as cooperative social animals.

But mere survival tells us nothing about what is moral or not. Countries like China with no human rights survive just fine.

Is “adultery a universal moral wrong”? And yet many practicing Christians remarry in Christian churches today, despite their previous partner(s) being alive, which was once seen as adultery.

There you go again, that because Christians fall short and sin does not negate these universal truths. It is again, a non-sequitur.

In the same passages that many Christians justified slavery – necessitating an apology from the SBC in 1995. “The Southern Baptist Convention issued an apology for its earlier stance on slavery. The issue had split the Baptist church between north and south in 1845. But a century and a half later, in 1995, Southern Baptist officials formally renounced the church's support of slavery and segregation”.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...ryId=112329862

Tass, I asked where the BIBLE justified racism. Please reference the Scriptures.

[Tassman]

No Tass, it is not true of all Christians. And Scripture does not condone nor condemn slavery.

So you’re saying that slavery can be a good thing?

When humans did not understand the laws of logic, or when they do not follow the laws of logic does that mean that said laws are not universal?

False analogy. Unlike morality, logic is based on reasoning according to strict principles of validity.

Thou shall not steal, lie, murder, - follow the golden rule, love ones neighbor, help those in need, etc... Even if we practice these things badly they still remain universal truths. An option that is not available to the Atheist.

All these things are consistent with morality over human history, because the rules of morality are a product of the evolution of necessary social behavior to survive as cooperative social animals. For ALL people regardless of religion or no religion.

But mere survival tells us nothing about what is moral or not. Countries like China with no human rights survive just fine

See above.

There you go again, that because Christians fall short and sin does not negate these universal truths.

What it demonstrates is that your so-called “universal truths” vary to a degree from culture to culture over time.

Tass, I asked where the BIBLE justified racism. Please reference the Scriptures.

You need to ask the Christians that justified slavery and racism for centuries by scripture.

[seer]

False analogy. Unlike morality, logic is based on reasoning according to strict principles of validity.

Not the point Tass, again: If many humans did not understand the laws of logic or failed to follow them does that mean that said laws are not universal? Yes or no?

You need to ask the Christians that justified slavery and racism for centuries by scripture.

Which means you know that there is nothing in scripture that justifies racism. But hey in your godless world we are racist because that is how the forces of nature created us to be. All perfectly natural.

[Tassman]

Not the point Tass, again: If many humans did not understand the laws of logic or failed to follow them does that mean that said laws are not universal?

They're not the same. Logic is based on reasoning according to strict rules of validity, whereas morality is based upon evolved behavior that enhances our survival as a species. It varies from culture to culture.

Which means you know that there is nothing in scripture that justifies racism.

ALL Christians read the bible through the ever-changing lens of their own culture and experiences. So, it’s up to the Christians that perpetrated slavery and racism for centuries to justify it, not me.

But hey in your godless world we are racist because that is how the forces of nature created us to be.

The same applies to your supposedly godly world – as history shows us.

All perfectly natural.

Of course it's all perfectly natural.