But then again, he’s obviously a product of our current education system where social studies consists of mult-kulti pyschobabble, never mind critical thinking. Unfortunately for the naif, fully 1/3 of the world’s population live in an environment where ‘just do it’ can mean a permanent end to one’s short life. And who’s Brian to say that that is wrong? I’m sure Dafur victims would love for him to give Sudan a good piece of his mind.

Other than that, La Shawn, you’ve nailed another excellent post!!! Too bad I can’t roll up my sleeves and dig in

Listen, Gay marriage will one day be legal ALL OVER THE WORLD. Sorry, it’s just the way it’s gonna be. Get over it. People are finally starting to realize that you only get only ONE life and you should live it the way you want to. Why live a life from a book that’s… I dunno how many years old, when life’s way to short? If God does exist then he doesn’t want you to worry about the what’s gonna happen to you after you die, worry about THIS life NOW. Then you can worry about the afterlife. Go live. If you’re a man, and you want to marry a man, DO IT. If you’re a woman and want to marry a woman, DO IT. Who is anyone to say it’s wrong? They’re not a God.

Just like heterosexuals then?

“Homosexuals were persecuted variously by Christians, National Socialists and assorted gay-bashers long before Muslims began living in the Western World..

Indeed they were, but homosexuals themselves have also persecuted and exploited others when they got the chance. The Biblical narrative for example records 2 instances of attempted gang rape by homosexuals. The incident in Genesis 19 of Lot in the City of Sodom is of course well known, but less well known is Judges 19, where homosexuals beset an innocent stranger for the purposes of rape.

Judges 19
v22—- They were making their hearts merry, when behold, the men of the city, sons of Belial, surrounded the house, beating at the door; and they spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thy house, that we may know him.
v23—— And the man, the master of the house, went out to them, and said to them, No, my brethren, I pray you, do not wickedly; seeing that this man is come into my house, do not this villany.
v24—– Behold, my daughter, who is a virgin, and his concubine; let me bring them out, and humble ye them, and do to them as is good in your sight; but to this man do not so vile a thing.

In ancient Greece the pattern repeats itself, as homosexual elites sexually exploit vulnerable young boys and men. When homosexuals get in a position of power, they do not hesitate to exploit and persecute others. See this link for example: http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/greece.html

Too often gays tell a one-sided story of oppression and gloom, but the reality is that they themselves are quick to oppress others when they get the chance.

-Russ

Moral relativism can be attractive. And at first glance to me, was intuitive. Then I tried to carry the thoughts through and unpack the layers logically and found it wanting.

I don’t want to confuse religious commandments and customs with morals. I think if a religion is true, it should fit with how the universe really is, but it is not the dictator of morals. One of things about how the universe really is is that there are ‘oughts’ and ‘ought nots’ out there. The idea that murder is wrong is something that is self-evident. (Some things have to be self-evident or we would not ever be able to prove anything). It exists outside of any religious beliefs or laws. If a society had no law against murder, would it then be okay? Is it ever okay to torture babies for the pure pleasure of it?

Does the law make morals? You point out that there are laws that would provide justice (an interesting concept in its own right – where does it come from?) by locking up the thieves of your car in our hypothetical example. Does the immorality of thieves stealing your car exist independently of the law? Or does it only exist because of it?

It would be much more comfortable for me say “live and let live”, but if I go into any depth with that I realize that I cannot possibly live by that creed, nor can expect anyone else to. If there are no ‘oughts’ in the universe, then there is no authority behind any morals and the concept becomes meaningless. If there ‘oughts’, then the implication is that they transcend any invention by humans.

John, you say this: “Where I differ is not wanting to enforce my morals on others, or believing there is One Book.”

Can you really live by this? Is it an immoral thing to enforce your morals on others? If you were stranded with 10 others on a remote island, would you not want to enforce your moral that? you should not murder on the others on the island if they did not believe it to be so? Or would you let them murder others or you? Would it be wrong for them? Would it be wrong for you to *not* enforce your moral on them, even if all 10 believed murder to be okay? (I know, lots of questions, but most are rhetorical)

I can respect the fact that you may not believe in “One Book”. I suspect you’ve given the matter a lot of thought. But I’d challenge you to dig a little deeper into where morals come from and whether they exist independent of us or whether they are a human invention. I think it’s pretty obvious where I stand on that. If morals are a human invention, there is no foundational reason whatsoever for me to follow them. If it’s the law, then all we’re doing is abrogating the decision about them to those in power. In which case, I’d hate to be a Jew in nazi Germany with their ‘morals’ and laws. The nazis where wrong to try to exterminate the Jewish race, whether anyone stopped them or not.

For the record, I am not an absolutist about everything. But, there are certain things in the universe that exist. Among these are some things that are self-evident. All it takes is one moral that is self-evident to refute the idea that we can pick and choose our morality. (I’m not saying that all things that we call morals are self-evident, or that all of these things should be forced upon others. But, clearly, some morals should be forced on others, like it’s wrong to torture babies for fun. And morals like this exist whether we believe them or not or whether a majority believes in them or not.

If all they came from are laws, then on what grounds would we ever be able to change a law. Slavery was legal here for a time. Was it immoral? If the law determines morality, then it could not have been immoral. And there would be no foundation for ending it. The Jews would have not grounds to object to their own extermination in nazi Germany. This is absurd on the face of it.

That’s all I have time for now. I also, hope this makes some sense.

-Russ

“The best to you.”

I sense dishonesty and snide derision in your in your ‘well wishes’. Sorry, but there it is.

“And you are hard up against the pressure of first adapting to and then adopting Sharia Law. Let’s see how your moral relativism works out then.”

SO much for your pre-emptive assumed moral conundrum regarding the sacking of Europe by Islam. Maybe the small hole in your reckoning is that I hold nothing but hostility for shariah law? Maybe. I’m sure someone not-so-clever could convice themselves to spin it anyway.

So I guess you can keep that strawman to yourself, and your passive-aggressive ‘moral relativism.’ strawmen too.

You will never convince me that Christianity alone invented ‘honesty’ or ‘property rights’, or ‘sex codes’, or ‘law’ because it didn’t. It also takes much more than someone who appears only to wield a hammer to convince me that I am a nail.

You might also want to read of Gods and Goddesses that were worshipped long before Christianity, you might see some glaring fundamental similarities. Christianity brought much religious liberalism to European religion, and for some of that I am thankful. However, not all of it. I cannot tell a lie to pacify a Christian, and I am thankful that Christians have re-interpreted and ignored parts of the bible over time. Is relativity choosing what to believe?

John

You are the product of centuries of fine minds who wrestled the Judeo-Christian ethic into a workable temporal code for society. The tap root of that ethic is the 10 Commandments.

English Common Law springs largely from the Judeo-Christian ethic. Although parts of ancient Roman Law also under gird English Common Law those parts are not incompatible with the Judeo-Christian ethic.

You have been born into an ethos with distinct moral standards. Like it or not, your society is fully ensconced in the Judeo-Christian ethic. How familiar you are with that ethic and how well you understand it is not readily apparent.

The rub come in when you deign to pick and choose the parts of the ethic you will pay heed to. That is moral relativism. It is egocentric. So long as you do not break statutory law, you are free to espouse any ethic you wish. However, when you start bashing others, expect them to ask why they ought/must follow your lead.

You seem to have a particular interest is homosexuals. Homosexuality is a behavior. Moral relativism is a behavior. Evangelical Christianity is a behavior. Current society has found the means for accepting all of these. Cannibalism, which is another behavior, is not accepted.

Individuals who engage in homosexual behavior have all the rights any other individual has. They can marry, but not someone of the same sex. (Statutory Law based on the Judeo-Christian ethic.)

Some people do not like homosexual behavior and they taunt or even attack those who practice the behavior. The law does not permit this.

You might like to refresh yourself with the Mongol horde. There was a strange ethic at work there. It was one of kill or be killed. They brought Europe to its knees and created the “Dark Ages.” They reduced an advanced and advancing civilization to tribes and clans who took to caves and hid in the forests. And they left nothing. Nothing. No literature, no belief system, no art, no architecture, no sauces for the food, no anything but chaos.

And in their wake, the Northmen brought their raping and pillaging and left nothing on which to build.

Through all of this, small pockets of Christians kept the lamp of the Judeo-Christian ethic burning. There was no stopping its rebirth and spread.

So many skeptics look back on the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the corruption in the Papacy and the Conquistadors and they see massive hypocrisy. But what they are really seeing is the corrupting influence of great power upon the frailty of man.

To reject the life of Christ because some terrible moments in history were committed in His name makes no sense. No Christian can claim to be Christ. One can only try his best to walk in His footsteps. Occasionally, a Christian spell binder pops up and amasses a huge following and then goes off on a power trip and crashes and burns. The frailty of man is not a pretty thing when it is in wide public view.

Mr. JohnD, you are the product of the Judeo-Christian ethic and the statutory law that stems from it. And you are hard up against the pressure of first adapting to and then adopting Sharia Law. Let’s see how your moral relativism works out then.

The best to you.

“If a moral does not require authority, where does the ‘ought’ come from in following it?”

I think a moral *is* a kind of authority in itself, in that it governs one’s actions. And you picked up on a discrepancy seemingly inherent in my reply to Heliotrope. What I mean, is, a moral doesn’t require a *specific* external authority in order for it ot be considered a moral. i.e it doesn’t have to be believed to be an instruction from a deity.

I suppose common usage becomes a kind of authority, but not in the way that written code, a religious text, or a more specifically enforced (by law) moral.

So some morals have authority of law, some have ‘authority/authenticity’ conferred upon them by customary and long usage, and some morals (ethics?) are dictated to us by personal beliefs (vegetarian/vegan/anti-cruelty, not buying from the mafia or chinese, etc etc)

Where a particular moral comes from dictates how or how not I can answer your question. I am not generally an absolutist, and I have no philosophical problems in seeing the fine grades that exist between a moral, a custom, a behaviour, a guilt mechanism, modesty, a law dressed up as a moral, a moral dressed up as a familial custom etc, etc. This doesn’t mean of course that *no* morals have any kind of ‘authority’, it just depends whether one chooses to accept the authority of them, or not.

For instance, if the Nation A worshipped a spaghetti monster in the sky, and their holy books said: “Kill your sister with small pointy-things if she fornicates before marriage”, and Nation B worshipped another spaghetti monster in the sky (with a different name) yet their holy books said “kill your sister only on a Sunday with medium-sized pointy things if she fornicates before marriage”

Then who has the ‘authority’?

Futhermore, what if both holy books said “Do NOT kill your brothers and sisters”??

Why should a person from Nation A respect the moral of not killing from a person from Nation B?

Even if they both had the same ‘moral’? The fact that they both claim to have The One True Spaghetti Monster means that neither can accept the other’s moral ‘authority.’

So, by your reckoning, why should we listen to that moral in the first place?? What authority does it have?

Unless Spaghetti Monster A’s convert to Spaghetti Monster B’s (or vice versa) then we have a fight about who is the most moral, and who is really *NOT* killing their brothers and sisters for the right reasons.

Religion can make my head ache, and my heart sink.

As it stands, I see way too much evidence of earlier customs and tribal laws, attitudes and religious rites having been adapted by monotheism, and regurgitated with renewed ‘authority’ and fearmongering/paradise-promising to be overly impressed by one groups cliams of ‘authenticity or authority.

I am authentic. My honesty and my moral codes are authentic. It would be easier for me to point at one book. But I can’t, it would be dishonest of me.

Russ asked:

“Why should you or anyone else follow your morals?”

Firstly, I never claim that I am the progenitor of all of my morals. For instance, I won’t hurt people if they don’t want to hurt me or other people. Most humans have that moral. Why should you follow it? That’s up to you. If you are a Christian maybe you would need ‘proof’ from the Bible that it is a good moral?

One thing my parents taught me, is that ‘honesty’ is one of the highest moral standard.

I bore this out in later life through study and observation, and I truly believe that integrity and honesty are immensely important. Why should you follow that moral coda, you may ask?

I don’t know, that’s up to you. I didn’t invent honesty, and neither did any religion.

Lastly, you ask (I’m trying o tbe brief but this is an enormous subject!!):

“If there is no authority, there is nothing to prevent me from picking and choosing my own morals and stealing your car would be perfectly okay with me.”

There is legal authority in my country against stealing cars. Many people choose not to accept the authority, or choose the more common moral/ethic of *not* stealing. I hope I can catch thieves at it. I hope they spend a long time locked up or repaying many times the damage they did by choosing their own path against the wishes of their society.

Morals don’t exist in a vacuum. Moral culture has it’s own complex ‘authority’ within a society , and is bound in law, religion, custom, social etiquette, community, etc etc.

No, it’s true, I don’t have on old manuscript to thump in order to give me authenticity. But I do, like most, have millennia of wisdom, morals, customs, guidance, local culture and my own personal relationship with the Great Unknown/Spirit – whatever you want call it. Where I differ is not wanting to enforce my morals on others, or believing there is One Book.

So you’ll have to accept or not accept my morals (i.e. ‘honesty’) depending on whether your culture or religion, or personal moral belief system accepts it or not?

I hope I made some sense,

Regards,

John

“I would hate to follow a moral code just because it was written down by someone and claimed as a fundamental law.”

I agree with this point…technically, because in a vacuum there is no authority attached. However, earlier, you say this: “A moral doesn’t require authority. Just as a parent has authority over it’s own children, so should a man have authority over his own thoughts and actions.”

If a moral does not require authority, where does the ‘ought’ come from in following it? Why should you or anyone else follow your morals? And further, if my own thoughts and actions lead me to steal your car, why aren’t my morals just as good as yours? If there is no authority, there is nothing to prevent me from picking and choosing my own morals and stealing your car would be perfectly okay with me. Plus, if you actually lived by those words, you would have no grounds for objecting to my behavior. If we pick and choose things that are moral, based on our own choices, then we would have no foundation to object to any behavior whatsoever if others are picking and choosing their own morals. But this leads to obvious absurdities.