If morality is relative how can Christian morals be criticised? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14977446
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think my interpretation (that god tested the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and only Lot was found to be righteous) is consistent with orthodox teachings.Your interpretation that God was fine with Lot, except when he offered his virgin daughters to be raped, is not.


So no evidence then?

Pants-of-dog wrote:God does not care about rape, if the owner of the woman is fine with it. The feelings of the woman are immaterial.


Rape was punishable by Death under the Law (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).


Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt this was because of his offer to rape his daughters. More likely, God was punishing his daughters for daring to interfere with Lot’s property, i.e, their vaginas and wombs.


Please Provide Evidence For This Claim.

Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we are clear that God says it is all right to offer your daughters to be raped, even if they are below the age of eighteen.


If God was okay with the rape of Lot's daughters, than why did the messengers of God in Lot's house stop him from giving his daughters to the sodomites and instead blind them with their power?


Pants-of-dog wrote:Unless you consider the Bible evidence, which it is, insofar as it is a collection of myths showcasing the morality of Bronze age sheepherders.


So no evidence then? Just red-herrings? Thats what I thought.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you refusing to support your incorrect assumptions, and you laso even refuse to discuss the possibility that you made these assumptions.So, I will simply continue to assume the assumpion is incorrect.


Not an argument and I have made no false assumptions. You on the other hand of made lots of presumptions.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it is fine, as I have alredy determined how to stop you from doing this kind of stuff.


:lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure. Not all criticisms of moral systems are necessarily moral claims themselves.


Well, if they have no bearing on what those system obligate (which is what morality is about), I don't see what they are actually brining to the table that would be relevant.

Perhaps you could give us an example.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Just go back and reread the last few interactions we had.


So no evidence. Got it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since it is called descriptive moral relativism, that would make sense.


Obviously.


Pants-of-dog wrote:The way I see it, the fact that no one can say that something is objectively right or wrong on an objective level does not matter. We can still make moral judgements other than that. People who mistakenly believe that their moral code is the right and objective one are still capable of making moral judgements of others, despite the fact that their moral code is not actually objective.



Sure. As long as we agree that such moral judgments have no actual objective validity, they are ethically no more significant than the voicing of a preference or arbitrary opinion.
#14977486
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So no evidence then?


Yes, you seem to have no evidence that God was unhapoy with Lot about offering his daughters to be raped.

Rape was punishable by Death under the Law (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).


Yes, because it robbed the father of his possessions; i.e. the rapist forcibly took the pure womb and vagina that belonged to the father.

Please Provide Evidence For This Claim.

Thanks.


Please read the Deuteronomy verses to which you just alluded.

This story is interesting because it illustrates how Christianity itself does not abide by an absolute and unchanging moral code. Christian morality is also subjectto relative notions like community standards.

If God was okay with the rape of Lot's daughters, than why did the messengers of God in Lot's house stop him from giving his daughters to the sodomites and instead blind them with their power?


Because God is rewarding Lot for his moral goodness. Sicne Lot was morally good enough to let his daughters be raped, he was rewarded by God by not having his possessions despoiled.

So no evidence then? Just red-herrings? Thats what I thought.


I agree. The Bible is not evidence for an objective moral code.

Not an argument and I have made no false assumptions. You on the other hand of made lots of presumptions.


Since I already expalined what assumptions you are making several times in the thread already, you are either forgetting what I wrote, or you never read it clearly to begin with, or you are arguing in bad faith.

Well, if they have no bearing on what those system obligate (which is what morality is about), I don't see what they are actually brining to the table that would be relevant.

Perhaps you could give us an example.


Again, I already have.

So no evidence. Got it.


If you are talking about “evidence for an objectice morality”, then I completely agree.

Sure. As long as we agree that such moral judgments have no actual objective validity, they are ethically no more significant than the voicing of a preference or arbitrary opinion.


Yes, all moral judgements are like this.
#14977499
Pants-of-dog wrote:Unless you consider the Bible evidence, which it is, insofar as it is a collection of myths showcasing the morality of Bronze age sheepherders.

Iron Age. All the Biblical texts are post Bronze Age in origin.
#14977500
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, you seem to have no evidence that God was unhapoy with Lot about offering his daughters to be raped.


You made the claim under contention, and you have failed to provide evidence; including the argument that God supported pedophilic child molestation. :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, because it robbed the father of his possessions; i.e. the rapist forcibly took the pure womb and vagina that belonged to the father.


Please provide evidence from the text for this claim that the vaginas and wombs were the property of the father in the sense you describe.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please read the Deuteronomy verses to which you just alluded.This story is interesting because it illustrates how Christianity itself does not abide by an absolute and unchanging moral code. Christian morality is also subjectto relative notions like community standards.


Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I agree. The Bible is not evidence for an objective moral code.


So you are changing the topic now because you have no evidence? Got it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since I already expalined what assumptions you are making several times in the thread already, you are either forgetting what I wrote, or you never read it clearly to begin with, or you are arguing in bad faith.


Still not an argument.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, I already have.


Please quote where you did so. Thanks.


Pants-of-dog wrote:If you are talking about “evidence for an objectice morality”, then I completely agree.


So you are trying to change the topic because you have a lack of evidence? Got it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, all moral judgements are like this.


No, only ones that are based on relativity.

My moral judgments are true because my system is logically true.

I would link my proof, but I already have three different times on three different threads to you and you have refused to debate it every time.
#14977505
Victoribus Spolia wrote:You made the claim under contention, and you have failed to provide evidence; including the argument that God supported pedophilic child molestation. :lol:


And I provided an exmaple of God being cool with raping teenage daughters.

I understand why you are reluctant to accept the fact that you worship someone who is okay with raping people under the age of 18. Or over 18, for that matter.

Please provide evidence from the text for this claim that the vaginas and wombs were the property of the father in the sense you describe.


I already told you where to look.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.


Sure. Back then, daughters were possessions that could be raped with the permission of the father. Now, Christians think this is wrong.

So you are changing the topic now because you have no evidence? Got it.


Againm the Bible is evidence that Christian morality used to include raping children and now it does not.

The lack of evidence is the lack of any supoort for an objecive moral code.

Even the Bible does not provide that.

Still not an argument.


Correct, it is a description of your inability to debate.

Please quote where you did so. Thanks.


No.

So you are trying to change the topic because you have a lack of evidence? Got it.


When you do things like this, it seems like you are arguing in bad faith.

No, only ones that are based on relativity.

My moral judgments are true because my system is logically true.

I would link my proof, but I already have three different times on three different threads to you and you have refused to debate it every time.


Since there is no objective moral code, all moral statements are basedon subjective moral codes. Including yours.

You may have convinced yourself that your moral code is objctive, but so have many people with moral codes that contradict yours.

The fact that you incorrectly believe you have argued this successfully does not change that.
#14977509
Pants-of-dog wrote:And I provided an exmaple of God being cool with raping teenage daughters.


So no evidence for the claim that God was okay with pedophilic child molestation then? Got it.

Also, please provide evidence that God approved of Lot offering his daughters to the sodomites from the text. I have asked for this evidence several times and you failed to provide.

Please do so.

Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I understand why you are reluctant to accept the fact that you worship someone who is okay with raping people under the age of 18. Or over 18, for that matter.


Fallacy of Presumption.

Besides, I have no reluctance, I am cool with whatever God commands.

No matter how heinous you might think it is.

:lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:I already told you where to look.


So no evidence then?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure. Back then, daughters were possessions that could be raped with the permission of the father. Now, Christians think this is wrong.


This is not evidence, pleae provide evidence that this is taught in the text we are discussing.

Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:gainm the Bible is evidence that Christian morality used to include raping children and now it does not.



Actually, you have failed to provided evidence that raping children is commanded or approved of by God. You have failed to provide ANY evidence of this in point of fact.


Pants-of-dog wrote:The lack of evidence is the lack of any supoort for an objecive moral code.



I have given a proof of such, that out of fear (apparently) you have refused to engage with after me challenging you to do so several times. Please feel free to debate the point, or else there is no reason to believe your posturing is anything but unsubstantiated bull-shit.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Correct, it is a description of your inability to debate.


So now you wish to add an ad-hominem to your lack of argument?

cool. :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:No.


So no evidence then?

Pants-of-dog wrote:When you do things like this, it seems like you are arguing in bad faith.


Your feelings are irrlevant.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since there is no objective moral code, all moral statements are basedon subjective moral codes. Including yours.


False, my proof demonstrates otherwise, there is no reason to believe otherwise when you have been too afraid to levy a challenge to it.

Your fee-fees are quite irrelevant.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You may have convinced yourself that your moral code is objctive, but so have many people with moral codes that contradict yours.


Fallacy; Non-Sequitur.

Just because others have a false moral system; it does not follow that mine is also false.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that you incorrectly believe you have argued this successfully does not change that.


My belief is correct, you are free to prove otherwise by responding to my challenge.

Otherwise, your arbitrary and unsubstantiated claims will be dismissed.

Thanks.
#14977512
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So no evidence for the claim that God was okay with pedophilic child molestation then? Got it.

Also, please provide evidence that God approved of Lot offering his daughters to the sodomites from the text. I have asked for this evidence several times and you failed to provide.

Please do so.

Thanks.



Fallacy of Presumption.

Besides, I have no reluctance, I am cool with whatever God commands.

No matter how heinous you might think it is.

:lol:



So no evidence then?



This is not evidence, pleae provide evidence that this is taught in the text we are discussing.

Thanks.




Actually, you have failed to provided evidence that raping children is commanded or approved of by God. You have failed to provide ANY evidence of this in point of fact.





I have given a proof of such, that out of fear (apparently) you have refused to engage with after me challenging you to do so several times. Please feel free to debate the point, or else there is no reason to believe your posturing is anything but unsubstantiated bull-shit.




So now you wish to add an ad-hominem to your lack of argument?

cool. :lol:



So no evidence then?



Your feelings are irrlevant.



False, my proof demonstrates otherwise, there is no reason to believe otherwise when you have been too afraid to levy a challenge to it.

Your fee-fees are quite irrelevant.



Fallacy; Non-Sequitur.

Just because others have a false moral system; it does not follow that mine is also false.



My belief is correct, you are free to prove otherwise by responding to my challenge.

Otherwise, your arbitrary and unsubstantiated claims will be dismissed.

Thanks.


No.

You seem to be arguing in bad faith.

You can get my replies when you are willing to addess my points in a constructive manner.
#14977521
Pants-of-dog wrote:You can begin with rereading the thread, finding out which assumptions I claim you made, and addressing those.


No, you can begin rereading the thread, and examining which argument and evidence you have ignored and which requests of evidence you failed to provide and address all of those first.


Once you do this, I will take that as an indication that you are willing to discuss this without being emotional or attempting to goad a reaction out of me as your opponent.
#14977524
Pants-of-dog wrote:As far as I can tell, I have addressed all your claims and criticimsIf you feel I have missed one, please bring it to my attention.


You have no answered any of my requests for textual evidence regarding your claims regarding Scripture.

You have also failed to provide to give an example of a relativist critique of a moral system.

Please provide evidence and examples of these. Thanks.
#14977528
Pants-of-dog wrote:I will do both of these things as soon as you address my point about your incorrect assumptions.Or more correctly, I will repeat the evidence and criticisms I have already presented.



You cannot repeat what you NEVER presented, and you presume to claim that I am acting in bad faith? :lol:


I have made no false assumptions in this debate.


So you lack evidence for your claims then?


Just as I thought.
#14977532
Okay, since you are now deliberately chiosing to avoid debate, this is done.

I spent quite some tome pointing out what assumptions you made, how they are wrong, and why they disqualify large portions of your argument,

You are now doing the equivalent of covering your ears and yelling that you cannot hear me.
#14977536
Okay, since you are now deliberately choosing to avoid debate, I think we are finished here.

I spent a great deal of time requesting evidence for your outrageous and outlandish claims and even pointed out their fundamental error, and you have refused to support your arguments or provide the evidence I requested.

You are now doing the equivalent of putting your head in the sand and pretending that I do not exist.


You have also refused to accept my challenge to debate my proof for objective morality for the fourth time on a fourth thread.
#14977581
Christians, or ex-Christians(like myself) can most certainly criticise Christian morality. :D

I actually find little wrong with most religious morality. I find the followers, however, most often do not practice the teachings of their religion. They take things literally, do not adapt it to modern laws/rules, and turn it into bigotry, intolerance, ignorance, etc.

All religions share core values to promote civil society, like: not lying, stealing, killing, cheating on your spouse, being hospitable, charity, etc.

So, in a nutshell, there isn't anything wrong with Christian, Islamic, Judaic, Buddhist, etc. morality. The problem is the idiotic humans who pervert them, or try to impose their will/religion on others.

I think most of us can agree that a good person is a good person, regardless of their religious affiliation, or lack thereof.
#14979588
Many Christians believe their morality is objectively correct.

Because of this, they feel it is moral to spread their worldview and morality.

If the receiver of such largesse is unwilling to be Christian, this is seen merely as an error on the part of the non-Xian.

And it is then considered moral (by the Christian) for the Christian to ignore the desires of the non-Xian.

Forcible conversion, here in Canada, resulted in mass graves, countless families destroyed, and things like medical experiments without consent.

In this way, we see that a belief in objective morality has lead to immoral results.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

I wondered how a post could have more than 3,700 v[…]

The USA has become an Arab-massacre machine in th[…]

College Admissions Scandal

The fairest thing I can say about this is that co[…]

Do you even realize that the overwhelming majorit[…]