11
   

Morality is not about behavior.

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 07:21 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
Its not the point,
WHAT's not the point ?



xris wrote:
you are defending a christian morality
I only expressed skepticism qua authenticity, pointing out that
the quote in question was NOT attributed to Jesus,
nor alleged to have resulted from discussions with him.




xris wrote:

on your view of Christianity, someone else can be just as truthful on the moral stand point because of their interpretation and keep slaves. Morality is about your understanding of what it should be and your adherence to it. You can only be truly judged, then only by yourself, if you break your own code of morality. That's why you became an enigma to me when you expressed yourself so callously but gave me the impression you are a christian.
I did NOT bring up the subject of any religion.

U did.






xris wrote:
No one can judge another's morals, only judge their actions by your morals.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 08:32 am
@OmSigDAVID,
So you can question the authority of scriptures but you don't debate religion.?
Bit strange ....So nearly all of St Paul's writings are of no consequence?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 11:17 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
So you can question the authority of scriptures but you don't debate religion.?
Yes; just reading facially, what was quoted. That 's not debating.


xris wrote:
Bit strange ....So nearly all of St Paul's writings are of no consequence?
Maybe; I don 't wanna comment without actively knowing
n remembering what I 'm commenting about
n I 'm not gonna take the time to read it
for purposes of this thread.

I said b4: I don't wanna debate religion. I did not change my mind.

U give me the impression
that u r just aching n breaking (approaching desperation) to debate religion,
but u need to find a willing debating partner for that n I don't wanna.

R u like an escaped nun, or something ?

How do u pronounce your name ?





David
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 11:39 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Ah so answering or replying is not debating,how strange..so what is debating?

"I'm not going to expose myself to ridicule "..thats your worry , you cant stand the idea that someone might question your beliefs and your right wing motivations. They dont stand scrutiny, do they?..dont worry friend I can understand your torment , your struggle with your conscience. I wont press you, im merciful.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 12:32 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Ah so answering or replying is not debating, how strange.. so what is debating?
ARGUMENT is debating, as distinct from merely observing what quoted material does not say.






xris wrote:
"I'm not going to expose myself to ridicule "..thats your worry,
you cant stand the idea that someone might question your beliefs
It is rude, to pretend that u can read my mind.






xris wrote:
and your right wing motivations.
They dont stand scrutiny, do they?..
My right wing motivations are political (relating to the US Constitution)
and economic (Adam Smith & Ludwig von Mises) not involving theology.

This republic is not a theocracy.

R u a fugitive nun ?






xris wrote:
dont worry friend I can understand your torment, your struggle with your conscience.
That alleged "struggle" very seldom arises, and it NEVER arises related to Christianity.





xris wrote:
I wont press you, im merciful.
We can debate other things, if u wish (or not).





David
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 01:19 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Well we never will know your torment as it lies hidden beneath your veil of secrecy . I can only imagine your pain of ethical conflict. The very seldom you speak of and admit to is more common than you would like to confess.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 02:02 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

jgweed wrote:



But at the same time, moral rules are always stated in a universal manner, although most have "escape clauses."For example, "thou shalt not kill" has all sorts of exceptions built in; the right of self-defence is generally recognised as an exception (or a moral rule of a "higher order"), or we find that rules can conflict (stealing bread to keep one's child alive).





The rules of morality are universal, because they are supposed to hold true of everyone. Everyone should not murder (not "kill") and everyone should not steal. What you mean is that (you don't think) they should be held in an absolute way so as not to make room for exceptions like your stealing bread example. The distinction between "universal" and "absolute" is very important and is often confused. It is moral relativists who deny that moral rules are universal, but they need not (although they may) deny that moral rules are absolute. By the way, the "science" of applying moral rules to particular circumstances is called "casuistry". Killing in self-defense is not an exception to the moral rule thou shalt not murder as long as killing in self-defense is not a case of murder. That simply is a matter of what we mean. But whether the rule against stealing should be applied in the example you cite, is a matter for casuistry.

Nonsense, Kenn..
We would like the rule of morality to be universal, but they are not even close unless we consider only one: Blood is thicker than water...

What the Jews do the the Arabs is moral and what the Arabs do to the Jews is moral, so how can there be some universality... The immorality of Huck Finn is that he took the side of a black against whites... The morality he stands by and decides he will go to hell for is a human morality which we are far from having... We would like to build our social form of Law out of our moral forms, like Ethics, Justice, Virtue... Then we find law is used to defend Ideal like Property, and power when these may represent the greatest of immorality... How can law support immorality, injustice, and stand against community authority and be moral... Law is not enforcing morality as much as protecting immorality... Law does not unite, but divides... It is part of the process of demoralization that goes on in all civilizations until they crumble...

So there is no universal morality... There was once, when all people were in tribes surrounded by enemies... Then the line was clearly drawn: Stand with the people, or become one of the animals that lurks beyond the bounds of society...Morality is community...

Make a law and make a loophole...Instead, recognize that people know by their bond, by their emotions what is moral, and morality is the price they pay, that we all pay, to be a part of a society... Immorality can be rationalized, as Huck Finn tries to do, but he knows he is immoral, by his feelings, his conscience... And feeling may be made the basis of some social forms, but no one can formalize feelings.... Either they are genuine, or they are not...It is not because of law that people keep the peace and obey the law... They would act morally without law...The mistake is in believing people need law to act morally when law more often protects immorality, so more law is needed and that only protects more immorality without helping people to act morally..
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 02:08 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Well we never will know your torment
Yes, because it does not exist.




xris wrote:
as it lies hidden beneath your veil of secrecy.
Imagine painlessness.






xris wrote:
I can only imagine your pain of ethical conflict.
I can 't even remember the last time that happened.








xris wrote:
The very seldom you speak of and admit to
is more common than you would like to confess.
Really?
How common IS it ?





David
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 02:22 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Me thinks you doth protest too much.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 02:40 pm
My "understanding of morality" is that moral relativity is de facto and moral absolutism is nonexistent; however the "way I behave" is based on conditioning and social setting.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 03:57 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Me thinks you doth protest too much.
It shows how much I respect the component elements of your post.

I had ONE torment:
my failure to have taken a certain girl 's hand, 50 some odd years ago.
Admittedly, she IS a Christian, but I don 't consider that a Christian problem.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 05:25:00