|
Post by goz on Feb 12, 2018 5:42:39 GMT
towards and ok let me be more specific, up until the emancipation, it was morally acceptable in the United States to keep slaves, it is not any more, how to you reconcile your claim that morality has not changed in light of that observation? Specificity isn't the problem as much as you ignoring what I'm saying. I'll be [more] specific too. Slavery did not end because some kind of moral light bulb came at the time of Emancipation. Again you are missing the point. Before emancipation people owned slaves and treated them sub-humanly and gradually it became a majority who were morally affronted at this behaviour enough to have led the anti-slavery journey towards and past emancipation legislation and a war. Today there is general moral outrage at the concept of slavery. There was a slow continuum of moral change.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 12, 2018 16:56:16 GMT
ok let me be more specific, up until the emancipation, it was morally acceptable in the United States to keep slaves, it is not any more, how to you reconcile your claim that morality has not changed in light of that observation? Specificity isn't the problem as much as you ignoring what I'm saying. I'll be [more] specific too. Slavery did not end because some kind of moral light bulb came at the time of Emancipation. yeah I can see that you have to dodge the point a little, let me help. Prior to the civil war, in most of American society it was morally acceptable to keep slaves, from the build up to the civil war, through the emancipation up to modern times it became morally unacceptable to keep slaves, how to you reconcile your claim that morality has not changed in light of that observation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 16:59:35 GMT
Codes of ethics, morality, churches, the very truth itself: constantly shifting in the winds of change.
The Bible: still the same old Bible.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 17:20:31 GMT
tpfkar Codes of ethics, morality, churches, the very truth itself: constantly shifting in the winds of change. The Bible: still the same old Bible. In all it's glorious depravity. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 12, 2018 17:26:47 GMT
Several posters have had some interesting insights on my other thread which leads me to post this extension. I think it was Graham said ...and of course society is also evolving, which often accounts for disputes and wars, religious or not. The old guard vs the new, with moderates in between. I would even post that religions are evolving. ( the new progressive Pope vs conservatives both in Catholicism and even more so in the battle between conservative fundamentalist Muslims and moderates) What, in your personal worldview does this mean to you, your community, your nation and the wider word? ...or do you disagree and STILL maintain that there is an absolute objective morality, and so any evolution is a retrograde step? I don't really know how to make sense out of "morality is evolving." Morality is a complex of subjective personal feelings, dispositions, etc. Those subjective feelings have various social influences, but it's an ever-changing, complex/(mathematically) chaotic thing if you're trying to look at a broader social picture of it. Is that basically what you'd be saying?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 12, 2018 17:28:59 GMT
Morals don't evolve since people can create as many moral codes as societies will accept. Plus they're stackable so there's not much issue except for those we create. You don't think morals have evolved from centuries ago when slavery was considered perfectly acceptable, "witches" were burned, homosexuals could legally be murdered, and women didn't have the same rights as men? That's one reason I was having difficulty with this idea, because it seemed to me that the TC was perhaps looking at this as morality is fundamentally something social and more or less unified. But that's not the case in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 12, 2018 17:42:54 GMT
Morality is a complex of subjective personal feelings, dispositions, etc. Those subjective feelings have various social influences, but it's an ever-changing, complex/(mathematically) chaotic thing if you're trying to look at a broader social picture of it. Are you still asserting that logic and evidence play no role in creating moral laws, with the result that moral laws have no more validity in guiding our behavior than our personal feelings do?
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Feb 12, 2018 17:52:06 GMT
There are "morals" and there are "mores".
Mores are too often confused with morals. Wearing long dresses, cutting hair short, not letting boys undressing dolls in the shape of gorgeous females (and somehow thinking such boys are gay for liking naked females), these are "mores", not "morals".
Real morals do not evolve. There is good and evil. There is right and wrong, in well over half of circumstances. It is the Conservative movement that actually wants us to believe different, to justify their immorality.
It's summed up by Jesus, in "love thy neighbor". That doesn't evolve. It looks that way to the feeble minded, because of History. In the time of Noah and Abraham, the time of Moses and Samson, the time of Elijah and Elisha, much that was assumed as fact is not written down, because it was obvious. There were some demons in human form who were relentless in their persecution of human beings, in pure sadistic evil for the sake of evil.
What has evolved is the identification of evil, and evil is way ahead of the game in tricking "judges", though the lower classes know all too well where it lies. Principalities are not chosen by the good God, but by Satan and the demons, in this existence. Anyone who hasn't learned that from the past presidential election in which the two worst possible legal choices for president in the country were the only two on the ballot (I said "legal", so the convicted criminals in prison weren't eligible), anyone who hasn't learned that is a certified moron.
It does no good to bring "witches and warlocks" to trial, because they are in control, and simply make sure innocent people are convicted instead. "Mores" have "devolved" in the American legal system. Idiots and naïve fools serve on juries. Most people under the age of about 50 are too gullible in believing unworthy authorities and big business.
It is always immoral to burn someone alive. It is always immoral to join lynch mobs that steal and cheat individuals out of all they have.
However, American mores have devolved so that the latter is accepted. It's still immoral, though.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Feb 12, 2018 17:55:21 GMT
We used to think it was moral to keep slaves, now (generally) we do not, how has the morality not changed? He's employing pointless semantics. For example, the notion of "all are created equal" evolved to include women and non-whites in the US. It didn't create a new code, the only one remains precisely as worded. It simply evolved in its nature.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 12, 2018 18:00:13 GMT
We used to think it was moral to keep slaves, now (generally) we do not, how has the morality not changed? He's employing pointless semantics. For example, the notion of "all are created equal" evolved to include women and non-whites in the US. It didn't create a new code, the only one remains precisely as worded. It simply evolved in its nature. It seems that at a certain point cool realises that he cannot continue to ignore the point being made and simply ignores the post. I am sad, I am genuinely here to hear other peoples views, but the Christians who I disagree with seem to not have thought out their stances very well. (that is a broad generalisation, but seems to be true of the people I have engaged recently).
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 12, 2018 18:07:52 GMT
He's employing pointless semantics. For example, the notion of "all are created equal" evolved to include women and non-whites in the US. It didn't create a new code, the only one remains precisely as worded. It simply evolved in its nature. It seems that at a certain point cool realises that he cannot continue to ignore the point being made and simply ignores the post. By that you mean - almost every thread he's ever participated in. Then, when it's pointed out that he ran away from a discussion he'll say something like "I'm under no obligation to continue a pointless discussion." He's right, he is under no obligation to show any integrity and admit when he's been proven wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Feb 12, 2018 18:07:59 GMT
Codes of ethics, morality, churches, the very truth itself: constantly shifting in the winds of change. The Bible: still the same old Bible. True, books don't tend to rewrite themselves. However, Christian morals continue to evolve despite a static source. For instance, you don't see most modern Christians counseling slaves to subject themselves to perverse masters with reverence or treating divorce and remarriage as adultery.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 12, 2018 18:08:02 GMT
He's employing pointless semantics. For example, the notion of "all are created equal" evolved to include women and non-whites in the US. It didn't create a new code, the only one remains precisely as worded. It simply evolved in its nature. It seems that at a certain point cool realises that he cannot continue to ignore the point being made and simply ignores the post. By that you mean - almost every thread he's ever participated in. Then, when it's pointed out that he ran away from a discussion he'll say something like "I'm under no obligation to continue a pointless discussion." He's right, he is under no obligation to show any integrity and admit when he's been proven wrong.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 12, 2018 18:12:10 GMT
It seems that at a certain point cool realises that he cannot continue to ignore the point being made and simply ignores the post. By that you mean - almost every thread he's ever participated in. Then, when it's pointed out that he ran away from a discussion he'll say something like "I'm under no obligation to continue a pointless discussion." He's right, he is under no obligation to show any integrity and admit when he's been proven wrong. It depresses me, there are very few actual conversations in this place. most conversations tend to degrade into how stupid the other poster is for clicking post twice
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 12, 2018 18:18:30 GMT
By that you mean - almost every thread he's ever participated in. Then, when it's pointed out that he ran away from a discussion he'll say something like "I'm under no obligation to continue a pointless discussion." He's right, he is under no obligation to show any integrity and admit when he's been proven wrong. It depresses me, there are very few actual conversations in this place. most conversations tend to degrade into how stupid the other poster is for clicking post twice HEY!!!
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 12, 2018 18:19:55 GMT
It depresses me, there are very few actual conversations in this place. most conversations tend to degrade into how stupid the other poster is for clicking post twice HEY!!! Giggle giggle snort!
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 12, 2018 18:22:56 GMT
Codes of ethics, morality, churches, the very truth itself: constantly shifting in the winds of change. The Bible: still the same old Bible. True, books don't tend to rewrite themselves. However, Christian morals continue to evolve despite a static source. For instance, you don't see most modern Christians counseling slaves to subject themselves to perverse masters with reverence or treating divorce and remarriage as adultery. Not to mention: There are plenty of books written long ago which have not changed much since they were first written. Greek mythology, the Quran, Bhagavad Gita... Whether they contain good moral guidelines is a matter of opinion. Just like with the Bible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 19:11:22 GMT
Codes of ethics, morality, churches, the very truth itself: constantly shifting in the winds of change. The Bible: still the same old Bible. True, books don't tend to rewrite themselves. However, Christian morals continue to evolve despite a static source. For instance, you don't see most modern Christians counseling slaves to subject themselves to perverse masters with reverence or treating divorce and remarriage as adultery. Agreed. All I can do is follow the same things that scripture has told me since I first started reading it. My moral code has evolved, but only inasmuch as I stopped following what other people were telling me about the Bible and started paying more attention to what it was telling me. As for divorce and remarriage, that's an interesting argument and one many Christians are loathe to have. I fall on the "yes, it is adultery and it doesn't even matter if you had a biblical excuse for divorce" side of the argument, but I am not anywhere near as confident of that as I am most other biblical issues. It becomes very challenging from a logistic standpoint as well. For instance, is it only adultery the first time or is it every time? And if every time, does that make one an "adulterer?" Muddy waters, these. I suppose I haven't thought it through a whole lot, though, since I plan to never make it an issue. One thing that is resoundingly clear in scripture is that God hates divorce. Making (and always keeping) my wife happy is a lifelong goal that has not been arduous in the least, but I work hard at it nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 12, 2018 22:34:27 GMT
Several posters have had some interesting insights on my other thread which leads me to post this extension. I think it was Graham said ...and of course society is also evolving, which often accounts for disputes and wars, religious or not. The old guard vs the new, with moderates in between. I would even post that religions are evolving. ( the new progressive Pope vs conservatives both in Catholicism and even more so in the battle between conservative fundamentalist Muslims and moderates) What, in your personal worldview does this mean to you, your community, your nation and the wider word? ...or do you disagree and STILL maintain that there is an absolute objective morality, and so any evolution is a retrograde step? I don't really know how to make sense out of "morality is evolving." Morality is a complex of subjective personal feelings, dispositions, etc. Those subjective feelings have various social influences, but it's an ever-changing, complex/(mathematically) chaotic thing if you're trying to look at a broader social picture of it. Is that basically what you'd be saying? Well, as I posted as examples about the Catholic Church evolving with a new more progressive Pope, and even the Muslim religion gathering more moderates, I guess I was hoping for people to help me analyse trends. So yes, a broader social picture. Graham identified increasing a wider circle of 'us' in the 'us' and 'them' tribalism debate. The growth of secularism especially in the most successfully advanced countries such as those in Scandinavia and northern Europe, the growth of globalisation etc. That kind of thing, and whether it is led by evolution of 'morality' or something else.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 12, 2018 23:54:40 GMT
I don't really know how to make sense out of "morality is evolving." Morality is a complex of subjective personal feelings, dispositions, etc. Those subjective feelings have various social influences, but it's an ever-changing, complex/(mathematically) chaotic thing if you're trying to look at a broader social picture of it. Is that basically what you'd be saying? Well, as I posted as examples about the Catholic Church evolving with a new more progressive Pope, and even the Muslim religion gathering more moderates, I guess I was hoping for people to help me analyse trends. So yes, a broader social picture. Graham identified increasing a wider circle of 'us' in the 'us' and 'them' tribalism debate. The growth of secularism especially in the most successfully advanced countries such as those in Scandinavia and northern Europe, the growth of globalisation etc. That kind of thing, and whether it is led by evolution of 'morality' or something else. Are you hinting at an idea of "progress"? I think it's important to not see evolution as suggesting "progress."
|
|