Posted on 03/19/2016 3:12:27 PM PDT by NYer
That is an example of disintegrated mode of thought which results in subjectivism, emotionalism, whim worship,relativism, and skepticism.
Objective moral principles are the consequence of a rational standard of value, such as preservation of life, operating in a particular context.
Homosexuality has little benefit to society other than pairing deviants to satisfy themselves for themselves so rape is reduced , I’m not claiming that gays are totally immoral it’s that there is no benefit to society and to others as a whole. And it is proven time and again.
just ask those Christian bakers that they destroyed over a wedding cake!
Can you be more specific? ‘western’
Do you mean Mormonism? new Age?
which? There aren’t too may beliefs created in the west, those are just two off the top of my head.
I mean classical Western culture.
So I assume you really mean Christianity. Western culture adopted that. Strictly for benefit.
When we say human nature can decide what is moral we are essentially saying everyone can do what is right in their own eyes. There is no right or wrong.
Everyone knows it is wrong to murder but we simply don’t wish to acknowledge it. On something more closer to home, how many of us would tell our kids it’s alright to lie to us or steal from us?
Yes, there really is a code of moral behavior written on our hearts and in scripture. We just want to choose it whenever it’s convenient to us.
(Jumping in here) you might say so, with explicit instructions not to pull the trigger, while proving no restrictions on the other guns, as such would have only positive effects.
Do you mean after he told those innocents what would happen,or before?
The ability to discern good and evil was present from the beginning. A+E were innocent but not unable to make moral choices, though they never knew guilt, and were given vast freedom, with only one solitary prohibition. For the freedom to choose is meaningless unless there is something to choose btwn. Yet were there no subversive temptation, it is unlikely they would have sinned.
But as the original leftist Liberal, the devil seduced Eve with the Victim-Entitlement Mentality, asserting that God was treating her unjustly with His prohibition, as He had no right to keep this certain knowledge of Good and Evil from her.
Meaning this was a demand for God to Share the Wealth, which was the premise of the Devil in the first Occupy Movement, that of the devil presuming to sit in the position of God (the administration building to the Presidency), climbing up "some other way" than that which is lawful. (Is. 14:14; Jn. 10:1; cf. 2Tim. 2:5; Rv. 3:21).
Even then saw the fruit was good to eat, and attractive to the eyes, and to make her wise, and so she ate, and enlisted Adam in sin, who was not deceived but simply went along with his wife. And as they were given stewardship of the earth, by getting their "vote" the devil gained power as the god of this world" system.
That discourse is certainly not what you expected, but there was more to this event than meets the eye. And as the devil yet craves the worship only God is worthy of, then he mainly seeks to obtain it by proxy servants, who likewise employ the seductive (because of man's strong sense of justice) Victim-Entitlement Mentality to obtain power, yet in the end only they reign in power and wealth, perhaps with a few avid supporters.
I will leave the rest of your post to the OP whom presented statements you addressed.
There is an intrinsic human nature, inherent in what Homo Sapiens is.
A moral code which aligns with that nature will produce a society which works and lasts.
A moral code which goes against human nature will produce a society which quickly collapses under its own contradictions.
As an example, Communism requires people who all practice altruism, or order to not collapse. It collapses.
The Free Market takes the intrinsic human nature to want to benefit the survival of self and family, and channels it in ways where people benefit themselves by producing products and services which satisfy the desires of others. The society grows and prospers to the extent that it stays within reality.
I expected it.
So, do you have any proof of your position or must it be taken only on faith?
“consensus” is just another way of saying “mob rule”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly.
There are only 3 possible moral bases once you evict a higher authority than mankind.
Basis 1 – The individual.
Each person their own set of morals. This destroys the idea of a moral standard and demotes morality to a matter of personal preference.
Basis 2 – The majority.
Morals are decided by consensus. This works well until the consensus changes in a short time period. Then those individuals who do not change quickly enough are subject to perfectly reasonable persecution. And if the point of contention is susceptible to pendulum-like acceptance/rejection, it is perfectly reasonable to persecute certain individuals because of their disagreement, then welcome those same individuals back into the fold once consensus swings back, ad infinitum.
AN EASY TO UNDERSTAND EXAMPLE OF BASIS 2: Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla, was publicly harassed until he quit his job, simply because his stance on same sex marriage did not shift at the same time that others with whom he formerly agreed (Obama and Hillary) did.
Basis 3 – The elite.
A minority (or individual) dictates the moral code. This is subject to the capriciousness of Basis 2, dangerously combined with the lack of inhibition. This is essentially tyranny, which calls for extreme measures of violence to retain control of the disagreeing majority.
Why not both?
Americans are unusual in that they divide the ideas of morality and ethics. And this goes all the way back to the founding of America. At the time, the kings and princes of Europe claimed that they were anointed by God, which gave them the legitimacy to rule. Even worse, they claimed that because of this, *their* laws were written in heaven; so to oppose them was not just to break the law, but acts of defiance against God.
Ptui!, said the founding fathers. While giving full faith and credit to the morality of heaven, they were quite clear that our constitution and laws are written by men, so they could be changed by men without offending God.
But this caused a divide in the law. And while there is considerable overlap, Americans equate morality with the laws of heaven. But they are less trustful of it, because it varies from faith to faith, and even from church to church. And they get downright distrustful of politicians who frequently proclaim their morality.
Ethics, on the other hand, Americans see as conforming to the secular law. They see it as far more objective, so if a politician touts his ethics, they can get a clear view as to whether he is ethical or a liar.
"Proof of your position" You mean that my interpretive commentary lacks warrants, or that the story itself as being an actual event, and thus the Scriptures as being of God, and God Himself is simply blind faith, versus Biblical faith, that being confidence based on a degree of evidential warrant?
Is that what want to debate on this pro-God forum?
Here’s something from Emerson:
We grant that human life is mean; but how did we find out that it was mean? What is the ground of this uneasiness of ours; of this old discontent? What is the universal sense of want and ignorance, but the fine innuendo by which the soul makes its enormous claim?
And the alternative is general consent and appeal to an accepted, at least basic standard, as with the Constitution and Bill of Rights (though the morality and principles behind that much flow from and concur with Scripture, and are reflective of the general religious faith of the Founders and the People) and of a system of jurisprudence based on it?
But not as themselves being above reproof from those who can present such based upon substantiation from said standard.
I don’t want a debate. Sorry to interrupt.
Well, if you are not going to make yourself clearer then it is unlikely you will get much of a response.
If there is no God it is all just made up.
And "normal" -- from the root word "norm," as in the statistically most common -- has not changed, even though the pro-homos would have you believe it has.
Your response indicates you don’t understand the meaning of faith and the spiritual perception provided with it.
My original post was an observation premised upon spiritual perception. This isn’t to cast you off, rather to qualify the meanings I provided are in a different domain than the soulish.
When a society allows a baby to be born (botched abortion) and still can legally kill it, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!
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.