Posted on 07/27/2010 12:05:32 AM PDT by Maelstorm
There’s also an obvious correlation between moral decay and loss of liberty.
2 Cor 3:17
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
Psalm 119:32
I run in the path of your commands, for you have set my heart free.
Psalm 119:45
I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts.
Galatians 5:1
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Neither of these are moral principles in themselves, they are just aspects of behavior. It is when you apply real moral principles to the acts of clinging/commitment that you have behavior which is either ethical or unethical. This Ph.D's analysis never gets off first base because of a flawed initial premise.
Since when are “don’t cling” and “show commitment” moral principles? The problem seems more like self-impressed miseducated types who doubt absolute truths promoting “appropriate advice in specific circumstances” to morality.
Anyone who says that “Don’t cling. Show commitment.” are moral principles is nuts, like most liberals.
“Moral* principles do more harm than good.”
Hitler and his fascist leaders believed the same. Many speeches were delivered by Nazi Party members belittling morality and rational thought. Hitler used a stock phrase in a number of speeches calling for Germans to “think in blood.” He derided reasoning and urged Germans to think emotionally. Think in blood was an admonition to throw away reasoning and intellectual thought. Get rid of those two and there’s no morality, only animals hunting victims.
This idiot fascist hack is telling people to become beasts
Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach. Those that can’t teach, administrate.
You’re asserting your point from a (rightful) assumption of moral absolutes, that moral right and wrong exist beyond human creation and definition.
If you want to understand his point, (temporarily) suspend that assumption of objective (God defined) morality.
My hat is off to you, Maelstorm. In first and said it all. Nail has met hammer.
GMTA. That’s where I stopped also, for the same reason.
Funny thing is, my pretty neighbor hits on me too. Odd.
LOL...I admit, my advisor was Ann Coulter...:)
That is because, like most liberals, he believes we not only are no better than beasts, we ARE beasts.
We can be beastly, that is certain. Your commentary was excellent, and spot on.
But to do that you must suspend all reason and attempt to argue from a position of absurdity. Once you eliminate God the concept of "morality" is meaningless and consists of nothing more than personal preference or social convenience - neither of which has any necessary claim to my allegience.
Yep. At first, I wondered why he posted this, then I saw why.
It pissed me off reading it. To be honest, it pissed me off from this very first sentence: “Moral principles do more harm than good...”
I have said this about liberals and their message for a long time: If you understand how they speak, you don’t need to read a five page bloviating dissertation. You can often tell in the first several words exactly what they are going to say.
This has added years to my life that I otherwise would have never got back. Granted this approach had two drawbacks: It fails in about 5% of the time because the writer is clever enough not to give themselves away too quickly, and it makes one susceptible to falling for satire (See John Semmons...)
But once you recognize their patterns...it makes life easy...:)
Yep. At first, I wondered why he posted this, then I saw why.
It pissed me off reading it. To be honest, it pissed me off from this very first sentence: “Moral principles do more harm than good...”
I have said this about liberals and their message for a long time: If you understand how they speak, you don’t need to read a five page bloviating dissertation. You can often tell in the first several words exactly what they are going to say.
This has added years to my life that I otherwise would have never got back. Granted this approach had two drawbacks: It fails in about 5% of the time because the writer is clever enough not to give themselves away too quickly, and it makes one susceptible to falling for satire (See John Semmons...)
But once you recognize their patterns...it makes life easy...:)
that there IS an objective standard that everyone, including atheists, attempt to argue from, and, ironically, against the existance of such a standard.
To befuddle an atheist, make him apply his strict standard to his own argument. You can't argue that your point is "logical" or "reasonable" when you are attempting to prove that logica and reason are the result of random blind processes.
“plus the pretty neighbor next door keeps hitting on me”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
For some strange reason that kind of thing happens less and less often lately, in fact is seems to have downright ceased! It must have something to do with global warming, or maybe it is BUSH’S FAULT.
I think the author of this piece has too many of his own moral principles cause he sure doesn’t sound very smart.
“Don’t cling” is a moral principle????
“Moral principles do more harm than good.”
Classic college level crapola.
What kind of ridiculous strawman is he setting up? I've never heard anyone suggest such a formulation until just a few moments ago. We should use the most efficient and practical energy sources available, it's good for humanity (and incidentally, good for the environment). "Moral principles of commitment to tradition" never at any point enter into the equation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.