Morality

[Phred]

Ok... so to expand on the earlier threads. I took some time and really thought about this. I think morality is simply based upon the difference between happiness and suffering. This is why we don't have a moral responsibility to rocks.

 

So we should be working to alleviate suffering and increase the joy around us.

 

Does anyone see any reason why this is not a good way to live one's life?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Ok... so to expand on the earlier threads. I took some time and really thought about this. I think morality is simply based upon the difference between happiness and suffering. This is why we don't have a moral responsibility to rocks.

 

So we should be working to alleviate suffering and increase the joy around us.

 

Does anyone see any reason why this is not a good way to live one's life?

 

Would it be bad of me to contend that I don't equate happiness with joy? And that to find joy, one must sometimes sacrifice happiness. And sometimes to find joy, one must temporarily suffer. And sometimes, our suffering and sacrifice is not even for our own joy. And sometimes, we make others (I'm thinking of our children, generally) actually suffer in order to provide for their joy.

 

So I'm not sure I agree. But I get the general gist of it. And today, suffering in a very minor, inconvenient way physically, I hope this isn't coming across as contentious. I do promise, however, not to use the words "and" and "sometimes" together again for at least a week just to reduce the suffering of anyone reading my posts.

[8filltheheart]

Too general a definition for me. B/c what is the moral compass that decides what is the best way to alleviate suffering in order to bring joy.

 

Does the end justify the means? Not in my definition of a moral compass, but obviously other people disagree (Machiavelli obviously, but so those doing stem cell research, abortion, etc. How about going to war....when is it just, when isn't it) Peter Singer argued that parents should have 28 days to decide whether to accept the life of an infant. How about the forced one child policy in China?

 

I am not for engaging whether those issues are moral or not. Pointless and not appropriate for this forum. I am only stating that at some point your argument is flawed b/c its base is human judgement and self-preservation. From my perspective, there is absolute moral truth. You can totally and completely disagree with that.....but then everything is purely moral relativism.

[Karen sn]

Would it be bad of me to contend that I don't equate happiness with joy? And that to find joy, one must sometimes sacrifice happiness. And sometimes to find joy, one must temporarily suffer. And sometimes, our suffering and sacrifice is not even for our own joy. And sometimes, we make others (I'm thinking of our children, generally) actually suffer in order to provide for their joy.

 

So I'm not sure I agree. But I get the general gist of it. And today, suffering in a very minor, inconvenient way physically, I hope this isn't coming across as contentious. I do promise, however, not to use the words "and" and "sometimes" together again for at least a week just to reduce the suffering of anyone reading my posts.

 

Pam, my brain was already fried! But this did me in.

Although I did get what you were saying and agree.

[8filltheheart]

:iagree: me, too.

[Phred]

Would it be bad of me to contend that I don't equate happiness with joy? And that to find joy, one must sometimes sacrifice happiness. And sometimes to find joy, one must temporarily suffer. And sometimes, our suffering and sacrifice is not even for our own joy. And sometimes, we make others (I'm thinking of our children, generally) actually suffer in order to provide for their joy.

 

So I'm not sure I agree. But I get the general gist of it. And today, suffering in a very minor, inconvenient way physically, I hope this isn't coming across as contentious. I do promise, however, not to use the words "and" and "sometimes" together again for at least a week just to reduce the suffering of anyone reading my posts.

Bad... no, not at all. What is the opposite of suffering? "not suffering" just didn't do it for me. Joy might be too much. Is happiness the word I should use to describe the other end of the spectrum?

 

Too general a definition for me. B/c what is the moral compass that decides what is the best way to alleviate suffering in order to bring joy.

So rather than do something you'd rather do nothing if you don't know the best method? I would contend there is no absolute.

 

Does the end justify the means? Not in my definition of a moral compass, but obviously other people disagree (Machiavelli obviously, but so those doing stem cell research, abortion, etc. How about going to war....when is it just, when isn't it) Peter Singer argued that parents should have 28 days to decide whether to accept the life of an infant. How about the forced one child policy in China?

What suffering does a blastocyst undergo? We owe no moral responsibility to a three-day old blastocyst just as we owe no moral responsibility to a tree. It cannot suffer. I don't agree with Peter Singer although the Japanese of centuries ago sort of did. And they spared themselves much suffering by telling the mothers that a child didn't get a soul until it was thirty days old. And... I'm not sure I agree with China... with that many people in a country that can't feed itself what options are open to them? Although I have to wonder about the amount of suffering the overpopulation of our planet is bringing upon ourselves. With a few billion less people there would be no oil crisis, no climate crisis...

 

I am not for engaging whether those issues are moral or not. Pointless and not appropriate for this forum. I am only stating that at some point your argument is flawed b/c its base is human judgement and self-preservation. From my perspective, there is absolute moral truth. You can totally and completely disagree with that.....but then everything is purely moral relativism.

As your argument is flawed as it's based upon something that does not exist. Absolute moral truth. But please, if you believe this exists, prove me wrong by showing me one absolute moral truth. I'd like to be shown wrong, it would make things easier.

 

In the meantime I'm trying to find something that does exist and can be shown to exist for everyone.

[Soph the vet]

Ok... so to expand on the earlier threads. I took some time and really thought about this. I think morality is simply based upon the difference between happiness and suffering. This is why we don't have a moral responsibility to rocks.

 

So we should be working to alleviate suffering and increase the joy around us.

 

Does anyone see any reason why this is not a good way to live one's life?

I think it is great to live life alleviating suffering and increasing joy, no problem there. But are you equating happiness with right and suffering with wrong? I've always looked at morality as knowing right from wrong which then begs the question, who decides what is right and wrong, which then leads to is there a moral plumb line or gold standard, so to speak. Is there truth? Like, is it absolutely true that some things are considered "right" by all and others "wrong" by all and if so where does the knowledge of the truth come from? No one told you that you did not have a moral responsibility for the rocks, you just knew it, just as you know that you do have a moral responsibility for how to treat your neighbor.

 

Going back to the happiness and suffering thing. There are many times where delayed gratification (implied small amount of suffering) will lead to greater joy than immediate gratification. We teach this to our kids, right? And there are times when intentionally inflicted suffering (like digging a splinter out of your kid's foot) will lead to a better outcome than if ignored. So I don't think it's that simple.

[8filltheheart]

As your argument is flawed as it's based upon something that does not exist. Absolute moral truth. But please, if you believe this exists, prove me wrong by showing me one absolute moral truth. I'd like to be shown wrong, it would make things easier.

 

In the meantime I'm trying to find something that does exist and can be shown to exist for everyone.

 

Without belief in the existance of God and man's creation in His Divine Image.....nope, there is no argument for absolute truth b/c my existance is no more meaningful than an amoeba.

 

Only if I believe that man's existance is different does moral truth exist. Than it is as simple as all (eta: human) life is sacred. Without that fundamental acceptance, than everything else is purely relative to your perspective.

 

So......you won't find a definition that everyone accepts. I reject yours b/c you deny the essence of my moral foundation. You reject mine b/c you reject my premise.

 

You are left with relativism.

[Julie Herbster]

As your argument is flawed as it's based upon something that does not exist. Absolute moral truth. But please, if you believe this exists, prove me wrong by showing me one absolute moral truth. I'd like to be shown wrong, it would make things easier.

 

In the meantime I'm trying to find something that does exist and can be shown to exist for everyone.

Phred, wouldn't your "something that can be shown to exist for everyone" be the same as "absolute?" If not, how are the two concepts different? It seems to me that if something exists for everyone, it is absolute. Something not only exists, but it also exists for everyone. If such a common morality exists, how can it be anything other than absolute?

 

You appear to be searching for the very idea that you say does not exist.

[Jugglin'5]

Ok... so to expand on the earlier threads. I took some time and really thought about this. I think morality is simply based upon the difference between happiness and suffering. This is why we don't have a moral responsibility to rocks.

 

 

The problem of morality has more to do with conflicting claims to happiness; for example, the mother versus the unwanted child, the adulterous spouse versus the faithful one who wants to remain married, etc. There are endless permutations of these conflicts that I don't think your statement deals with.

[j.griff]

How's about "doing your best (or not) to live peacefully with all other inhabitants of the earth"?

:)

Or "acting with positive or negative intent". I mean, obviously there's a HUGE difference between accidentally killying/harming someone, and purposely doing so. Stuff happens, it's how we respond or react to it, and how we recover from it, that can make or break us and others involved, KWIM?

It can't be as simple as "causing happiness", because that is left to interpretation. You have all sorts of scenarios to consider, for example "boy love", those men claim that the boys they want to "enjoy" also enjoy such acts, so in their opinion they are "causing happiness".

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Phred, wouldn't your "something that can be shown to exist for everyone" be the same as "absolute?" If not, how are the two concepts different? It seems to me that if something exists for everyone, it is absolute. Something not only exists, but it also exists for everyone. If such a common morality exists, how can it be anything other than absolute?

 

You appear to be searching for the very idea that you say does not exist.

 

:iagree:

 

Besides, on what do you base the premise that all happiness is good and all suffering is bad? If there were no more suffering, would we be happy?

 

Didn't someone mention H.G. Wells Time Machine in another thread? Do we want to turn ourselves into contented cows? Wouldn't that be going backwards on the evolutionary ladder?

[percytruffle]

Would it be bad of me to contend that I don't equate happiness with joy? And that to find joy, one must sometimes sacrifice happiness. And sometimes to find joy, one must temporarily suffer. And sometimes, our suffering and sacrifice is not even for our own joy. And sometimes, we make others (I'm thinking of our children, generally) actually suffer in order to provide for their joy.

 

So I'm not sure I agree. But I get the general gist of it. And today, suffering in a very minor, inconvenient way physically, I hope this isn't coming across as contentious. I do promise, however, not to use the words "and" and "sometimes" together again for at least a week just to reduce the suffering of anyone reading my posts.

 

I agree also, Pam. The end of suffering is not necessarily a state one would want to achieve. Suffering and happiness are not mutually exclusive entities. They are dependent on one another. I don't think there is an inverse relationship between the two where is one decreases the other increases by the same amount.

 

Here is a quote from Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Address from 1978. The bold insert is mine:

 

"When the modern Western States were created, the following principle was proclaimed: governments are meant to serve man, and man lives to be free to pursue happiness. (See, for example, the American Declaration). Now at last during past decades technical and social progress has permitted the realization of such aspirations: the welfare state. Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and of such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness, in the morally inferior sense which has come into being during those same decades (This I equate to the happiness v.s joy issue that Pam addressed). In the process, however, one psychological detail has been overlooked: the constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to obtain them imprints many Western faces with worry and even depression, though it is customary to conceal such feelings. Active and tense competition permeates all human thoughts without opening a way to free spiritual development. The individual's independence from many types of state pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, leading them to physical splendor, happiness, possession of material goods, money and leisure, to an almost unlimited freedom of enjoyment. So who should now renounce all this, why and for what should one risk one's precious life in defense of common values, and particularly in such nebulous cases when the security of one's nation must be defended in a distant country?

 

Even biology knows that habitual extreme safety and well-being are not advantageous for a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to reveal its pernicious mask. "

 

The last part resonates with me especially well. Even biology (science) which is without emotional bias, relies on adversity to foster change. Are we then to eliminate adversity where possible? Is our ultimate goal as sentient beings to become mediocre, steady state, creatures?

 

When you assume that all suffering is bad and all happiness is good you have greatly oversimplified their roles in human development.

[nancypants]

We differ so greatly. I think we have a moral responsibility to rocks. And trees. And sea anemones. And blastocysts. All of those responsibilities don't look exactly alike and we have to make value judgments no matter what we decide to do with all of these things. (For instance... do we save the Pine Beetles or the Pines?) In my view of life and the world that is what "taking dominion" is... learning how to make those value judgments appropriately and it's not an easy balance to strike no matter who you are or what your beliefs about morality.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

You are left with relativism.

 

I think very often my skepticism is mistaken for relativism. To paraphrase Charles Sykes, skepticism denotes a search. Relativism denotes the belief (which is, IMO, also an absolute) that nothing is absolutely good or bad.

 

There is a difference. But this might be too far a detour from the original question and proposition. So back to the books for me! :auto:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

We differ so greatly. I think we have a moral responsibility to rocks. And trees. And sea anemones. And blastocysts. All of those responsibilities don't look exactly alike and we have to make value judgments no matter what we decide to do with all of these things. (For instance... do we save the Pine Beetles or the Pines?) In my view of life and the world that is what "taking dominion" is... learning how to make those value judgments appropriately and it's not an easy balance to strike no matter who you are or what your beliefs about morality.

 

And as we search for this balance, there is a good deal of relativism. Even with absolutes (or an Absolute) at the core of what we hold as truth. (And that's ok. It's part of every human being's search for meaning.)

[j.griff]

I agree that we have moral responsibilities to rocks and trees and all lifeforms, I just wasn't sure I wanted to "go there" in this thread, :)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I agree that we have moral responsibilities to rocks and trees and all lifeforms, I just wasn't sure I wanted to "go there" in this thread, :)

 

Maybe Phred means we aren't responsible for making or keeping them "happy."

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

And as we search for this balance, there is a good deal of relativism. Even with absolutes (or an Absolute) at the core of what we hold as truth. (And that's ok. It's part of every human being's search for meaning.)

 

I still wonder though, why do humans feel the need to search for meaning?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I still wonder though, why do humans feel the need to search for meaning?

 

Because that's what it means to be human. It's what we do. We also search for the cure for the cancer -- we want to know. We want to understand.

 

You have an opinion about why we search, right? The God-shaped vacuum? "O Lord, Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee"?

[elbac]

I still wonder though, why do humans feel the need to search for meaning?

 

Simply put, without any meaning, what's the point?

[Peek a Boo]

so ...as long as we kill someone/thing who's miserable or subjectively considered useless quickly w/o them suffering, that would be ok?

 

define suffering.

 

define "moral responsibility."

 

define happiness.

 

don't we have some moral responsibility to the trees/plants/animals for no other reason than our global ecology relies on them? what's the difference between "moral responsibility" and plain ol "responsibility?"

 

as for ME, stuff like abortion is pretty absolute: science shows that you have a developing human. sperm has penetrated egg and the process has begun. intentionally stopping that is intentionally killing a human in a specific stage of development. That's absolute enough for me :) Preventing a human from even BEGINNING to form is a different issue, scientifically.

 

so what kinds of "absolutes" do you want?

[Jackie in AR]

I think morality is simply based upon the difference between happiness and suffering. This is why we don't have a moral responsibility to rocks.

 

So we should be working to alleviate suffering and increase the joy around us.

 

As your argument is flawed as it's based upon something that does not exist. Absolute moral truth. But please, if you believe this exists, prove me wrong by showing me one absolute moral truth. I'd like to be shown wrong, it would make things easier.

 

In the meantime I'm trying to find something that does exist and can be shown to exist for everyone.

 

Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

How do you know that happiness and suffering and joy exist? Can you prove that they do? And are your definitions of these things the same as everyone else's?

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Because that's what it means to be human. It's what we do. We also search for the cure for the cancer -- we want to know. We want to understand.

 

You have an opinion about why we search, right? The God-shaped vacuum? "O Lord, Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee"?

 

I don't know about any God shaped vacuum. I've heard the quote before, and wondered, is that rest supposed to be now or in the hereafter. If it is now, I'm in trouble. If it is only in the hereafter, why would I take steps to unnaturally prolong my life?

 

Anyway, I believe that humans are special because God made them that way, but I don't have all the other questions answered.:001_smile:

[Call Me Cordelia]

We differ so greatly. I think we have a moral responsibility to rocks.

 

I can honestly say that here's a topic about which I have previously thought no thoughts. Not one.

 

And I 'm not certain I will begin!!;)

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I don't want to be rude, but this just seems like part of the song that never ends. We know where you stand, and by now, you pretty much know where we stand. All these questions of yours tend to lead back to the same place.

 

Is there something you are hoping to learn or accomplish?

[mcconnellboys]

Well, LOL, we might have a moral responsibility to some rocks in some times and places if we feel that we should be responsible for taking care of the earth, but yeah, I think that the most basic moral law when you boil it all down is 'do unto others'....

 

Alleviating suffering and increasing joy sound like good general objectives, too, but like anything, they need to be used with discretion because some possible scenarios of alleviating suffering might actually cause greater suffering in the end result (natural consequences should sometimes play out, in other words) and some means of "increasing joy" might not always be in everyone's best interest, either (although it might be fun in the moment)....

[8filltheheart]

My favorite passage from any book.....one that speaks to my heart and soul and gives meaning and purpose to my life (ok Pam.....I'll try to not use "and" so much)

 

"The motto was "pax,' but the word was set in a circle of thorns. Pax: peace, but what a strange peace, made of unremitting toil and effort, seldom with a seen result; ......It is My own peace I give unto you. Not, notice the world's peace." (In This House of Brede by Rumer Godden)

[Phred]

Ok... First, moral responsibility. I feel we have a responsibility to try prevent the suffering of another if it's going to suffer. That means a rock or a blastocyst does not come under the cover of that responsibility as defined that way. On the other hand, we do protect rocks and trees but not for their benefit, but rather for ours and for our children's. So let's be clear about that. Never in all the time I've been aware of the Sierra Club has the argument been made that man should not chop down trees because it hurts them.

 

Now does that mean this is an absolute? No... it's a guide. It's a guide we all live by whether we wish to admit it or not. In the case of a blastocyst it has about 16 cells. A fly has about 100,000 in its brain. It can move about and make decisions yet you can rob it of life without a thought if it lands on your table. Does it suffer? If you base your decision on the number of cells it contains then we're talking serious confusion.

 

Peek, you say abortion is absolute for you. That it's killing a human being at a stage of development. Yet, since more than half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant doesn't that make God the largest abortionist of all? And isn't this really about something called the "soul" that you believe we have? Something you believe we get upon implantation? Then tell me, what happens to twins? Does their soul split too? Or do they get an extra soul?

 

Stem cell research could hold the promise for some of the greatest advances medicine has ever seen and it's being held up because people believe that a three-day old group of 16 cells is the equivalent of a human being. Personally, I see no moral question whatsoever. You have people suffering right now who are dying (no pun intended) for those treatments and balls of cells that feel no pain that might have "souls" within them. They will sit in freezers until the clinics quietly get rid of them. My last point is this... if the clinic were to catch on fire and the firemen had a choice of rushing back in to save the freezer or a child.. what do you think they'd do?

 

All we have is relativism. There are no absolutes.

[Julie Herbster]

All we have is relativism. There are no absolutes.

Phred, if you believe this, then why did you start this thread, seeking for an "absolute" reference point for morality? You said:

 

I think morality is simply based upon the difference between happiness and suffering.

and:

I'm trying to find something that does exist and can be shown to exist for everyone.

 

I responded:

Phred, wouldn't your "something that can be shown to exist for everyone" be the same as "absolute?" If not, how are the two concepts different? It seems to me that if something exists for everyone, it is absolute. Something not only exists, but it also exists for everyone. If such a common morality exists, how can it be anything other than absolute?

You appear to be searching for the very idea that you say does not exist.

Have you then renounced your search?

 

What is the point of trying to find common ground morally if "all we have is relativism" and "there are no absolutes"? Seems rather a waste of time...

[PiCO]

Ok... First, moral responsibility. I feel we have a responsibility to try prevent the suffering of another if it's going to suffer. That means a rock or a blastocyst does not come under the cover of that responsibility as defined that way. On the other hand, we do protect rocks and trees but not for their benefit, but rather for ours and for our children's. So let's be clear about that. Never in all the time I've been aware of the Sierra Club has the argument been made that man should not chop down trees because it hurts them.

 

Now does that mean this is an absolute? No... it's a guide. It's a guide we all live by whether we wish to admit it or not. In the case of a blastocyst it has about 16 cells. A fly has about 100,000 in its brain. It can move about and make decisions yet you can rob it of life without a thought if it lands on your table. Does it suffer? If you base your decision on the number of cells it contains then we're talking serious confusion.

 

Peek, you say abortion is absolute for you. That it's killing a human being at a stage of development. Yet, since more than half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant doesn't that make God the largest abortionist of all? And isn't this really about something called the "soul" that you believe we have? Something you believe we get upon implantation? Then tell me, what happens to twins? Does their soul split too? Or do they get an extra soul?

 

Stem cell research could hold the promise for some of the greatest advances medicine has ever seen and it's being held up because people believe that a three-day old group of 16 cells is the equivalent of a human being. Personally, I see no moral question whatsoever. You have people suffering right now who are dying (no pun intended) for those treatments and balls of cells that feel no pain that might have "souls" within them. They will sit in freezers until the clinics quietly get rid of them. My last point is this... if the clinic were to catch on fire and the firemen had a choice of rushing back in to save the freezer or a child.. what do you think they'd do?

 

All we have is relativism. There are no absolutes.

 

:iagree: Interesting thread, Phred.

[nancypants]

There are no absolutes.

 

You just contradicted yourself Phred.

[Soph the vet]

There are no absolutes.

 

Absolutely?:D

[Jackie in AR]

Absolutely?:D

 

This made me literally LOL.

[percytruffle]

This made me literally LOL.

 

 

Me too! I just finished repping her for this and my only comment in the rep statement was "LOL!" Too funny. Such a good one-liner, or shall we say one-worder. Touche!

[j.griff]

I keep seeing all these posts about relativism, as if it's somehow "lacking" or as if it's a "bad" thing. I keep seeing religious folk claim that if you don't have a religion, then "all" you're "left with" is relativism, and maybe I'm wrong, but I'm picking up the added the thought that religious folks do not believe in relativism.

IMO, morality IS relative, whether you're Christian/other religion, or not. It's relative to your personal beliefs, and your actions based on your beliefs. So, while (we'll stick with the majority here) Christians think that God IS, whether you believe in Him or not, it's ironic that relativism IS, whether you believe in it or not.

[j.griff]

It's a bumper sticker. "There are absolutely no absolutes" ;)

[Soph the vet]

It's a bumper sticker. "There are absolutely no absolutes" ;)

 

Phred, do have one of these?:lol:

[Soph the vet]

I keep seeing all these posts about relativism, as if it's somehow "lacking" or as if it's a "bad" thing. I keep seeing religious folk claim that if you don't have a religion, then "all" you're "left with" is relativism, and maybe I'm wrong, but I'm picking up the added the thought that religious folks do not believe in relativism.

IMO, morality IS relative, whether you're Christian/other religion, or not. It's relative to your personal beliefs, and your actions based on your beliefs. So, while (we'll stick with the majority here) Christians think that God IS, whether you believe in Him or not, it's ironic that relativism IS, whether you believe in it or not.

 

I don't think everything is absolute. I would agree that most things are relative (or I could be a product of the seventies situational ethics education:glare:) but why can't there be some things that are absolute and others that are relative?

[Julie Herbster]

 

why can't there be some things that are absolute and others that are relative?

Could you give an example of what you mean?

[Michelle in MO]

All we have is relativism.* There are no absolutes.

I'm not sure why you bothered to start this thread---or some of the other threads, like "Do you tithe?" or "Did Neil Armstrong land on the moon?" I'm not sure if you're really searching for answers or just trying to argue for argument's sake. If you're looking for answers, I'm sure that there are many on this board who will try to discuss these matters plainly with you. If you're just trying to argue for the sake of argument, then I personally see no point in engaging in this discussion.

[Michelle in MO]

I think very often my skepticism is mistaken for relativism. To paraphrase Charles Sykes, skepticism denotes a search. Relativism denotes the belief (which is, IMO, also an absolute) that nothing is absolutely good or bad.

 

There is a difference. But this might be too far a detour from the original question and proposition. So back to the books for me! :auto:

 

a healthy dose of skepticism! Whenever I've read your posts, Pam, I've never mistaken you for a relativist. You should read Jon Krakauer. He's a skeptic, but I love his books because he's extremely honest in the way he writes---I think you'd enjoy him! (Of course, this is off topic, but I had to throw that in!) :D

[j.griff]

Then why engage? ;)

We are all different, and just because some may not see the value in rehasing ideas, and trying to come to an understanding or get to the bottom of a line of thought, that does not mean there IS no value. KWIM? I think we'd all be better off assigning a positive intent here. If ALL you have to say is the same old same old, and you don't want to participate, then you don't have to. BUT, sometimes if questions are asked a little differently, or if a person who answered one way previously has had time, and HAS thought about the questions, then there will be a slightly different answer- which may lead to a bit of enlightenment for some.

 

I see Phred "thinking out loud", in a room full of people. I don't see anything "wrong" or "negative" about his posts.

[Soph the vet]

Could you give an example of what you mean?

Sure, I'll try.

Example of an absolute: Rape of a child is wrong...anybody disagree?

 

Example of something relative: Lying is wrong, however when people harbored Jews during the holocaust to prevent their murder, they would lie to the authorities at times so the Jews would not be taken in order to preserve life.

 

Am I making sense?

[Jami]

I'm not sure why you bothered to start this thread---or some of the other threads, like "Do you tithe?" or "Did Neil Armstrong land on the moon?" I'm not sure if you're really searching for answers or just trying to argue for argument's sake. If you're looking for answers, I'm sure that there are many on this board who will try to discuss these matters plainly with you. If you're just trying to argue for the sake of argument, then I personally see no point in engaging in this discussion.

 

 

I have to say I agree with Michelle. There are boards for atheists and Christians to go at one another (I assume there are anyway), that seems to be sort of the flavor of a lot of your posts, Phred. I get sort of a "poor, deluded Christians, it's my mission to show them how foolish their understanding of the world is" vibe from you. I could be wrong of course. It all feels a bit like I'm being "evangelized", which I'm sure you don't appreciate from the "other side". If you're a homeschooling dad, cool, obviously there's a place at this table for you. Perhaps you might have interesting curriculum suggestions to share once in awhile, or family outings you've done with your child(ren), etc.

 

Jami

[j.griff]

I am. I suppose that is "absolute". :D

Other than existence, I can't think of any "absolutes".

Lots of times, it all boils down to trying to discern the lesser of two evils. Killing people is "bad", but it's okay to kill someone to stop them from killing other people.

[PiCO]

I'm not sure why you bothered to start this thread---or some of the other threads, like "Do you tithe?" or "Did Neil Armstrong land on the moon?" I'm not sure if you're really searching for answers or just trying to argue for argument's sake. If you're looking for answers, I'm sure that there are many on this board who will try to discuss these matters plainly with you. If you're just trying to argue for the sake of argument, then I personally see no point in engaging in this discussion.

 

I find this discussion very interesting. I think Phred is looking for mind-expanding discussion. I have been following this thread because I find different people's points of view enlightening. I enjoy reading the opinions of people I do not agree with, when these opinions are presented politely and thoughtfully.

 

Just curious- if you see no point in engaging in this discussion, then why post?

[j.griff]

But then you have to define rape, and define child, and that makes it all become somewhat relative.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

a healthy dose of skepticism! Whenever I've read your posts, Pam, I've never mistaken you for a relativist. You should read Jon Krakauer. He's a skeptic, but I love his books because he's extremely honest in the way he writes---I think you'd enjoy him! (Of course, this is off topic, but I had to throw that in!) :D

 

Wow, thank you, and thanks for the recommendation.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I have to say I agree with Michelle. There are boards for atheists and Christians to go at one another (I assume there are anyway), that seems to be sort of the flavor of a lot of your posts, Phred. I get sort of a "poor, deluded Christians, it's my mission to show them how foolish their understanding of the world is" vibe from you. I could be wrong of course. It all feels a bit like I'm being "evangelized", which I'm sure you don't appreciate from the "other side". If you're a homeschooling dad, cool, obviously there's a place at this table for you. Perhaps you might have interesting curriculum suggestions to share once in awhile, or family outings you've done with your child(ren), etc.

 

Jami

 

Well, hmm. I was looking at the thread in a different way. I know that when I was a Christian, I took pretty seriously (not that you don't!) the admonition to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you the reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear." And honestly, I was baited many times (not that I'm accusing Phred of baiting!), but the exhortation was not to "decide whether or not the enquirer is sincere, then answer with meekness and fear." It was simply to answer.

 

I just always assumed that someone who was asking so often was trying a) to clarify his/her own beliefs, b) trying to fully understand why I believed what I did and where I was coming from, and/or c) was Searching with a capital "s." And I figured it wasn't up to me to figure out whether or not the latter was true.

 

What if Phred is searching? Capital "s" Searching, even? (And I'm not saying he is, I'm just asking for sake of argument here.) Those who are saying, "Will you shut UP with the asking already? Why are you trying to put my Faithful Feet to the fire and make me back up the reason for my belief?" -- are you sure you want to be doing that? There is at least one dear poster on this board who three years ago would have strongly and adamantly (though never rudely, may I say) identified as atheist/agnostic who is now staunchly Christian (but who is not "in your face" about it). My dfil challenged my husband and me for YEARS about our faith -- laughed, harangued, questioned, challenged -- and four years ago came back to his childhood (Christian) faith rather dramatically.

 

And I didn't realize we were "going at" each other, but I might have a different comfort level for disagreement than some do here. (I'm pretty sure I do, because sometimes people talk about being "yelled at" or "slammed" and I'm sitting clicking posts again and again trying to find it, because I didn't "hear" it.)

 

Discussion and information and idea-sharing are rarely wasted. There is, of course, such a thing as throwing pearls before swine. But there's also a strong tradition of sowing seeds that you may never see bear fruit. (And this does work both ways, so I can see one's hesitation if they feel their faith or philosophical position will not bear the brunt of the winds of challenge or opposition, no matter how politely offered. That I understand. But to those folks I would just encourage to move on past these discussions. No one will think the worse of you for it, really.)

 

Respectfully submitted. (And Jami, I hope you don't feel picked on. I could have answered any of the similar posts.)