 |
If everyone in the universe were required to behave within certain parameters or else
Die. Would that be unnacceptable? Wrong? Evil? Intolerably stifling? Insufferable? Or does justice require that somewhere in the universe all behavior be admissible? I know there are differing views on this but I'd like to see what justifications are given for each side.
The idea that all behavior is OK if justified by a local set of morals and that other society must accept that behavior and not judge them set on their local morals is a fairly new idea of comparative morality.
It basically says that we can not judge terrorsts for example for killing someone but cause under their beliefs it is acceptable. Or you can't judge a child molester because under his understanding he is doing nothing wrong.
In all honest opinion it is a very silly idea in which there could never be a right or wrong. If you take these ideas to some extremes no one was willing to accept some level of behavior but without an absolute base of righ and wrong, there is no justification,
What makes the accidental shooting of someone less bad than a pediphile who molests children ( the children are not dead but the shooting victim is dead) so is the accident worst ? Not by most peoples view point but why ?
So in the new age beleifs of accepting others values as OK, we destroy the base moral value that was the guide for centuries.
What people who advocate the anything-goes policy fail to understand is that without law there is pandemonium and loss of freedom for those unable to defend themselves.
If everyone is a law unto himself then the law of the strong predominates-victimazation goes unpunished, and human rights are trampled under foot.
BTW
That pre-socratic sophist moral-relativistic idea was limited to that philosophic group at that time and was not as widespread as it is today as you said. We need not go too far back in history to find the present anything-goes idea missing. Part of the reason was the stronger influence of the church.
I must say however loosley you tie "accepting others values as ok" to the concept of placating pedophilia and terrorism, it is a tactic beneath educated discourse. I have never heard anyone advocate supporting such ideas in the interest of not treading on another's values. Have you? Or is this just empty rhetoric? The end - your opinion, justifies the means - lying.
Fr_Chuck, you refer to "the base moral value that was the guide for centuries". Those centuries were when? The incredebly peaceful last few hundered years, where western ideals have held sway? Do you count the centuries dominated by the crusades, the inquesition, and the commerce of slavery?
OK, so terrorist activity is not OK, WHY ?
Then you believe you are the one that has the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong ?
How come your opinoin of right and wrong is better or worst than mine ?
You would accept... and... but then not...
But the people doing the things you don't accept fully believe they are right in what they are doing, and how do you have the right ( under that belief system to say they are wrong)
to the boy/man love group, they merely really love the children
to the perosn who believes that he has the right to force all society into folloying Islamic law, believes it is totally right to do so by killing those that disagree,
And that is just the problem, your issues, gay marriage or abortion or gun control are worth discussing, because you may disagree with them, but other issues that you believe is wrong, should not be because you believe they are wrong.
There is a fairly accepted view point of moral values, if you look at the basic beleifs accepted by original Christianity ( not the new beelive what you want) the Jewish faith and the Muslims, they all have very similar standards of moral values
You make some very good points.
I'd like to hear Fr_Chuck's response to this.
BTW
I think that the gist of his answer is that if we say that morality is culturally-dependent
And doesn't exist unless it is culturally created then we are taking an amoral stance where no conduct is inherently wrong.
I am not entirely clear on how you are asking this Starman. I don't mean to sound daft here but... reality says to me that we are already required to behave within certain parameters or else die. No two objects may occupy the same space at the same time and people die in accidents ignored that parameter all the time. Please don't think I am trifling with you either--the implications of that are no minor thing, in my accounting. We really should be looking more there for some of these answers.
As for a moral code of conduct, I am clear of one thing -- it must work for everyone. And it only needs to be acceptable to some majority of the inhabitants of the planet too. I believe, with or without the benefit of it being labeled new age, that we are moving toward something like a that collectively as humans. It may be where all the major religions overlap, or it may be what we discover can survive as a socio-economic-politcal culture, or something else we of today have yet to even conceive. I see the threads of it weaving and sewing all over the place though and its exciting. I see it shaping up in the growing recoginition that all humans are very much alike and that what is life supporting or life diminsihing is also very universal in its most basic forms. One land's terrorist is another land's soldier, frankly. Did you see the movie Hero -- what a perfect example of illumnating how important it is to rise above limiting perceptions. One thing is very clear for me -- no one person's personal agenda, religion, politics, etc will be the successor. Those need to be eventually held closer personally and looser publicly and that trend is already happening in the US in measurable numbers.
And with all due respect, I don't think what Fr Chuck suggests is what is meant by new age?
Fr Chuck I am not saying my opinion is more right or wrong than yours. Nor am I saying that some issues should be discussed while others are off limits. If you will read my post you will see I was taking exception to your tactic of tying emotional, negatively charged words to the idea of acknowledging other peoples values. It appears as though you are reaching for the extremes of behavior to justify trampling dissent (and taking a cheap shot at new age philosophy). Clearly abortion and gay marriage are important issues to you. You mention them often. Should people who support equal rights or personal responsibility be painted with the same brush as those who believe in mass murder and abusing children? In your world apparently so. Or at least for as long as it takes to win the argument.
What commonality there is in the moral views of the Islamic, Christian and Jewish faiths is the commonality of humanity. People don't need prophets or priests to know that the indiscriminant killing of innocents is wrong. Yet armies of the faithful have done just that over these centuries when their 'accepted view of moral behavior' was well known and supposedly guiding their 'righteously' murderous behavior.
Let's see if I can make myself a little more understandable. What I mean is that today we seem to have developed the concept that everyone has a right to determine what she or he feels is right and wrong and that to go contrary to that concept is to go contrary to a sacred virtue. This concept thrives despite the reality that you point out. It's that concept that I am asking about. Would we object to a universe in which this concept and its implementation is pronounced illegal and punishable by death or would we feel that it is intolerable to live under such a restriction and demand that room be made in that universe for those who wish to be their own law.Quote:
Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow
This is a bizarre question Starman. I'm not sure what justice would have to do with requiring that somewhere in the universe all behavior be admissible? I suspect those that believe in hell would say 'yes'. In hell would be all the unnacceptable, Wrong, Evil, Intolerable, and Insufferable behaviour that they would wish not be part of their world. So the terrorists would practice terror on the boy/man loving, gay marrying, abortionists all day long and all would be right with the universe. God would sit proudly in heaven being worshipoed by all the followers who fear him so.
I don't know. Who will set these parameters? Who would approve? What the hell does this question mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VBNomad
If all behavior is admissible then their would be inevitable injustice.
The traditional fundamentalist concept of hell is that it is a place of suffering, not one in which the sinners are given free reign to practice their sins. A higher power-such as God, can be imagined to set the parameters.
Isn't one of the ten comandments Thou Shalt Not Judge? If it is in the Bible then why should people argue over it. What I'm trying to say is as far as same sex marriages you can't help who you fall in love with, about the child molestation that's the governments falt, my father which was a Baptist Preacher molested five children in my family and got away, he was reported to the police every time somehow each time they let him go he traveled through different states molesting little kids until my sister tracked him down herself because the jusice system failed. With the terrorist that wasn't our war to begin with, Afganastan and Isreal was at war with each other over the Holly Land so Isreal ask for America's help. That is why they attacked us because it wasn't our war or our buissness, so should we blame the terrorists or our government for that. We bomb schools with their children in them because one man they were chasing ran into it. So maybe that is why they think they did nothing wrong, and from my understaning we sold Afganistan the weapons they used against us years ago. It only seems wrong to us because in the newspapers and on the news they only offer half truths. So where is it rite for anybody to judge someone else and when someone does something wrong there is usually someone else that helped take part in that crime. Now all there is left to say is in the Bible there is only two unforgivable sins, the first one is praising another God and the second one is suicide. So as long as you pray to God for forgiveness before you die your not going to hell.
So essentially what you are saying is that it is an injustice not to permit all behaviors because people have a right to choose how they will behave and based on that right they shouldn't be evaluated negatively or judged? Also, people behave badly because they are influenced by others so it isn't all their fault and because someone else had some part in it they shouldn't be judged? Since there are only two unforgivable sins people committing all other types of sins shouldn't be judged? Would you really be willing to live in such a universe?Quote:
Originally Posted by puppetkicks
BTW
Where in the Bible does it say that suicide is an unforgivable
Sin?
I do understand that, and I use extremes since it is easier to see the folly in ideas when you reach for extremes, but yes there are in today's society man/boy groups that are asking for ( right now) that the age of consent be lowered to 12 so for that the abuse of children are advocated for some social groups today.
We have some groups in society today that still own and believe in slavery,
And today's terrorist is tommorows freedom fighters if and when that group wins and they get to write the hisotry.
I only look at the American Revolution, if one would look at the writings of the English during that time, the Americans were terrorist, they would not stand in a row and march out and fight like they were "suppose" to.
They hid behind cottom bales, they hid behind trees, or they attacked when the enemy was sleeping and attacked and ran away. A true terrorist compared to the "PROPER RULES of WAR" at that time.
But if you were a trained english soldier of that time, the Americas would have been terrorist animals having no honor. But we never hear that version of history, and I doubt even the English teach that version today.
Our greatest traitors are some nations hero's.
In many nations or cultures today, women have little rights are are still little more than property.
Each beleve their culture is right and base their beliefs on some moral value,
So in true reality of earth, right and wrong, moral culture and even the "truth' of history often is determined by those cultures that have been able to force their beleifs on others either though religion or though military power.
Of course each believe their views are correct, and those firm in their beliefs will never believe the value of the other. A man with 3 wives will not accept that it is wrong, ( if ti really is)
Even in Iraq today the man getting ready to kill a police station with a bomb, believes in his mind that he is fighting for his very way of life and the values he believes in.
so is it right or wrong for example for the Afgan people to grow poppies ?
For us it makes drugs, and hurts our people in the US, for them, it keeps their children from starving
So many things are good and bad not in the event itself, but in the precieved effect it has on each of us
Hello Starman,
In today’s world we often hear the opinion expressed: “The principles of Christianity are not practical. They just will not work in today’s complex society.” However, in a reported conversation between the Hindu leader Mohandas K. Gandhi and the former British Viceroy of India, Lord Irwin, a very different sentiment was expressed. Lord Irwin asked Gandhi what he thought would solve the problems between Great Britain and India. Gandhi picked up a Bible and opened it to the fifth chapter of Matthew and said: “When your country and mine shall get together on the teachings laid down by Christ in this Sermon on the Mount, we shall have solved the problems not only of our countries but those of the whole world.”
That sermon speaks of seeking spirituality and being mild-tempered, peaceable, merciful, a lover of righteousness. It condemns not only murder but being wrathful with others, not just adultery but lustful thoughts as well. It speaks against irresponsible divorce actions that break up homes and victimize children. It tells us: ‘Love even those who dislike you, give to the needy, stop judging others unmercifully, treat others as you would like to be treated.’ All this advice, if applied, would yield tremendous benefits. The more persons in your community who practice them, the better your community becomes!
Many may say that the principles of Christianity are not practical for this modern world. However, what else has worked or will work? Christian principles can be of real value if applied to your community now, and they will be the basis for uniting all ‘nations, tribes, and peoples’ earth wide under the rule of God’s Kingdom over mankind.—Revelation 7:9, 10.
I agree with “Gandi” but most of all with Jesus Sermon on the Mount. When Man stops trying to take God’s laws and try to redo them to their own desires and opinions, then and only then will true justice throughout the earth prevail. Many man made laws are not made with all persons involved or for all persons benefit. Many laws are there and if one has enough money or place of power they can have written into the laws what is good for them and their groups. That certainly is not justice!
The laws or commands set down in the Sermon on the Mount, were for all humans. If we stick to them, we benefit. When we start to inculcate our own opinions and laws to what is already perfect for all humans, then that is when we find laws or principles that do not benefit others. In God’s eyes, Children are children, and adults are adult. Children are not adults, and they simply cannot function as adults. When parent-child roles are reversed, the adult like children of today become the unfulfilled grown-ups of tomorrow. Ephesians 6:4. Family counselor John Bradshaw writes: “They grow up to have adult bodies. They look like and talk like adults, but there is within them an insatiable little child who never got his or her needs met.” Such ones may feel as did one Christian: “I still carry a bottomless pit of pain from not getting my most basic emotional needs met as a child.”
This is just one of the many problems facing this world just because people don’t listen and they feel they can do it better then “God” has already done. This is my opinion on a religious point of view.
Now for a view of those who do not believe in a Creator, remember that without order and law the world is lost and does not know which way to turn. That is why there are murders, child molesters and even wars and hatred and thieves and even people who just feel they can do and treat others in what ever way is good for them. Ask yourselves, is this world a really great place to live? Young children get shot just for living where they live. A drive by crazy person decides to spray bullets all over the place. Has man’s laws and idea of justice put an end to these things? No they haven’t and that is why I try and do things God’s way. It seems to be the only real justice left>
Just my opinion and may I add, I believe strictly in “Behavioral Uniformity Demanded.” Yes, demanded by God in unity with his laws and justice, not man’s!
Take care,
Hope12
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:25 PM. |