Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[Ouroboros]

Dear Dogma,

 

So I guess, since you seems to know that God exists, what is faith or belief then? Is your faith a conviction about something that is completely proven? Or is faith a belief in something that is not proven, but has to be "leaped" to? I always find it a bit strange how hard Christians try to prove their God, because if they really do have a proof, then is it really a belief or faith anymore?

 

And if your evidence and argument is so extremely convincing, beyond any reasonable doubt, then why beat around the bush about it? Just present it, since there's no way no one ever could argue against it.

[Guest Dear Dogma]

Well firstly in defense of my innitial statement, I believe I said there were convincing signs one of them being an ingrained sense of fairness witnessable particularly by the willfull admission of most that natural human rights exist. I ventured nowhere near the assertion that God could be "proved" as you infer, however if you assist me by adressing the question I did posed we may go further into the discussion of what determines what is or is not a human right.

[Ouroboros]

DD,

 

In regards to human rights, do you feel that Joel Feinberg's explanation is inadequate?

[Guest Dear Dogma]

Han Solo;

 

I am unaware of his explanation and therefore can not comment on it's sufficiency. If you maintain his suppositions to be true than please feel free to submit them in addressing the question I've posed (preferably in your own words as I am Dialoguing with you and not him and he can not reply)

 

I am just closing my shop and am away for the weekend, I promise to log back on Monday and address any input from you or anyone else that would like to discuss this topic.

 

in peace; Dear Dogma

[Ouroboros]

If you took a philosophy class in Ethics and Morality, you would read about Feinberg's presentation of what human rights are. The extract we read was quite too long to present here. Unless I can find a link to an online text, I'm not going to go over every minute detail. Wait... maybe I can find the summary I wrote... I will look for it and upload it here.

 

But to answer your question if there are any fundamental rights, yeah, in some aspects I think there are some rights.

 

I can only assume you ask because you want to say: "where did those rights come from?" Isn't it so?

[Ouroboros]

After second thought, I don't feel comfortable to upload parts of my term papers, so I will try to find a public article instead.

 

If there are any inalienable rights, I guess it would be the old: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's tricky when we start talking about negative v positive rights, or internal and external freedom. Do you really want to go down this path?

[florduh]

Hello, Dear Dogma.

 

Human rights is not exactly a cornerstone of the Biblical message.

 

Genocide, slavery, subservient role of women, etc.

 

I don't mean to appear rude, but why don't you actually read that book that is the entire basis for the Christian religion. In it you will see how the God character chooses some for favoritism and damns others to violent deaths and eternity in Hell.

 

If you're not prepared to accept all of the Bible, why do you believe parts of it. How do you know those are the "right" parts?

[Guest Dear Dogma]

Just a quick response from home before signing off for the weekend (although I admit I may check in and ponder). In response to Hans Solo, I reply;I am most eager "to go down that path" although in my o.p. I mentioned an objective right and wrong and natural human rights not "negative and positive rights" You will have to clarify to me what exactly these terms mean before proceeding.

 

To reply to "Cranky old bastard" (interesting moniker b.t.w.) I stated in my o.p. my initial arguements must proceed first and foremost on the subject of the existance of a force outside of nature that determines the precepts of what is or is not an objective right or wrong.... a God (not yet discussing a biblical Christian God. This first step is crucial, anything I present as an arguement for the afore mentioned hinges on it. I can see quite quickly that there is no need at this point of our discussions to attempt to justify my position that the biblical God is the correct one, before the innitial question I have raised is discussed.

F.Y.I. I have read "that book" and am prepared to accept all of it, but as mentioned am not willing to go there until the posability of a god existing is discussed fully. I'd love your input on the question I've posed though.

 

 

Peace.... out for the weekend Jacques

[florduh]

Well, dogma, you claim your god is the Christian god, so what other god do you want to discuss? People have invented gods of all description.

 

You are familiar with the god of the Bible. Do you wish to discuss Deism or Pantheism instead?

 

Do you see acceptance of the possibility of the supernatural a first step to the Real God?

[Deva]

IFirst and foremost before even beginning to attempt justify a Christian Biblical God, I must lay down the assertion that there does exist an objective right and wrong and that there is a supernatural (ie; outside of nature) force that determines what is an objective right and wrong. ... I remain convinced that because all humanity shares an ingrained sense of what is fair and what is not attests to this. If you believe in human rights (which I believe most humans do) you already admit to this sense of fairness and an objective right and wrong. What binds us to and determines what is, a natural human right?

I plan to share no discussion on any particular Christian topics until this first issue I have raised is addressed.

 

I say humans do have a sense of right and wrong. Centuries of socalization and civilization and before than, existance in small bands of hunter-gatherers produced it. It was found that certain activities tended toward survival and others did not. Any behavior that enabled human beings to get along so they could operate in a cohesive group would be helpful. We did not evolve long teeth and claws to defend ourselves. Groups must stick together, otherwise, someone might not be there to see the lion approaching and give warning. Those who did not cooperate, and were excluded from the group, did not often survive.

 

You are going to have to prove something from outside nature, some God, directed or produced all this. You will have a tough time convincing me. There may be the appearance of an "objective right and wrong" because some laws are almost universal in human society, but there is also plenty of variety out there too over the course of human history.

[Legion]

... I must lay down the assertion that there does exist an objective right and wrong and that there is a supernatural (ie; outside of nature) force that determines what is an objective right and wrong.

Jacques I have to agree with Devalight and others here. I do think we may have an innate sense of right and wrong, but I think those attributes which allow this discernment arose by natural means. I don’t believe we need to invoke the supernatural to explain it. I think cooperation resides at the foundation of life and permeates all of its scales and realizations.

[Antlerman]

First and foremost before even beginning to attempt justify a Christian Biblical God, I must lay down the assertion that there does exist an objective right and wrong and that there is a supernatural (ie; outside of nature) force that determines what is an objective right and wrong.

Right and wrong are human evaluations. They are hardly "objective", except in that they may apply to a majority of individuals and be called that. There is no measure that can deem them to be objective. What would you possibly use to measure that by?

 

What you are doing, it appears, is taking a general commonality, or conscience of what is considered moral by humans, and from there extrapolating that there must of some necessity be some "source" of this. Why this "source" couldn't be humanity, instead of some beyond-nature source, eludes me. It appears to ascribe super-naturalness to it. That is itself a leap of hope to support a chosen faith, and nothing more.

 

I remain convinced that because all humanity shares an ingrained sense of what is fair and what is not attests to this. If you believe in human rights (which I believe most humans do) you already admit to this sense of fairness and an objective right and wrong. What binds us to and determines what is a natural human right?

So if you attribute this to a god, do you suppose IT, to be human-like? Forgive me, but in this day and age, are you unaware of anthropomorphizing - attributing to a god human characteristics? Frankly, it is vastly simpler to explain everything we see from anthropology to the empirical sciences in this phrase: "In the beginning, Man created God in his own image", rather than the other way around.

 

What bind us to "a natural human right"? Our natural humanity. That simple, and that supported.

[Ouroboros]

Just a quick response from home before signing off for the weekend (although I admit I may check in and ponder). In response to Hans Solo, I reply;I am most eager "to go down that path" although in my o.p. I mentioned an objective right and wrong and natural human rights not "negative and positive rights" You will have to clarify to me what exactly these terms mean before proceeding.

Even if objective right and wrong existed, you wouldn't be able to know it, since you're a subjective narrator of your own experience. You can't be a subjective person who can identify what objective truth is for other subjective persons. If you could, first of all, you have to be God to claim that skill, and secondly, we have to be able to objectively identify you as such. So even if objective right or wrong did exist, you and I wouldn't know what it would be.

 

A negative right is when a person is not subjugated to torture or persecution. It's the theory of imposing duties upon citizens and state to keep their hands of individuals in certain aspects of life. It also include the right to a fair and speedy trial.

 

A positive right is things like the right to work, periodic holidays with pay, right to food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education.

 

The UN declaration in 1948 mention both negative and positive rights. Negative rights are the only possible candidates for "absolute" or universal rights, while the positive rights are more a matter of "benefits" to the citizen.

 

You might argue that you're not talking about the "rights" of a person, but the things that are "right" vs "wrong". However, somehow these things are connected, because if you are to do something right against a person, or if you do something that is considered wrong against another person, it is based on what the rights they have. Morality is very much based on the interaction, stability, avoiding the "hurt", and doing what is right towards another person.

 

You of course would argue there are "right" and "wrong" things a person can do in private, without including a second party, but there's where it gets really tricky, because ultimately those actions are judged in the light of how they affect the person, and eventually affect other people in their surroundings, and hence still come back to a matter of interaction with other people.

 

To reply to "Cranky old bastard" (interesting moniker b.t.w.) I stated in my o.p. my initial arguements must proceed first and foremost on the subject of the existance of a force outside of nature that determines the precepts of what is or is not an objective right or wrong.... a God (not yet discussing a biblical Christian God. This first step is crucial, anything I present as an arguement for the afore mentioned hinges on it. I can see quite quickly that there is no need at this point of our discussions to attempt to justify my position that the biblical God is the correct one, before the innitial question I have raised is discussed.

Even if there's anything, or something, that could be objectively true, right, or wrong, you can't objectively know what it is. Since you're a person of subjective insight, and not an objective observer of the universe and life. You can assume there is an objective right, but since we can't know what it would be, it's only in theory. It's like saying, in theory the perfect circle exists, but in practical terms--in reality--there is no "circle" drawn somewhere which has the exact, perfect, dimension to represent the exact infinite regression of digits in Pi.

 

But to give you something to work on, lets say for the sake of the argument that I agree there are objective rights and wrongs, then please, tell me one. Give me one example of an unalterable, universal, objective right.

[Neon Genesis]

To reply to "Cranky old bastard" (interesting moniker b.t.w.) I stated in my o.p. my initial arguements must proceed first and foremost on the subject of the existance of a force outside of nature that determines the precepts of what is or is not an objective right or wrong.... a God (not yet discussing a biblical Christian God.

If an outside source is necessary in order for something to have objective morals, then since god has no outside source, what gave god objective morals? If god has no outside source to give it objective morals, then does that mean the existence of your version of god is impossible? If god doesn't have an outside source to give it objective morals, doesn't that mean god's morals are arbitrary? If whatever morals god gives us is absolute, then if god commanded you to kill an innocent child, then would you do it? And if our morals are given to us from god, then what's the point of Christianity? Why do we need the bible to tell us what's right and wrong since according to you what's right and wrong has already been given to us directly by god?

 

Jacques I have to agree with Devalight and others here. I do think we may have an innate sense of right and wrong, but I think those attributes which allow this discernment arose by natural means. I don’t believe we need to invoke the supernatural to explain it. I think cooperation resides at the foundation of life and permeates all of its scales and realizations.

In other words, it's basic common sense. We don't need a god to tell us that touching a hot stove will get you burned, so by logic we know that it's for our safety that we don't touch the hot stove. Likewise we don't need a god to tell us that murder is bad because logic tells us that nothing good comes from hurting others.

[florduh]

It's a specious argument. Just a trap to get us on the first step of what he thinks is a "slippery slope" to Jesus.

 

Enjoy the discussion.

[Taphophilia]

The problem with believing that "right" and "wrong" are universal and have a supernatural origin is that to believe so, you must have a very limited view of human history and society. The concepts of "right" and "wrong" have changed and evolved along with humans and their societies. For instance, throughout human history it was not considered murder or "wrong" to kill a person of a sub-standard ethnic group, to rape their women and their children, and in some cases commit genocide against them. (I would like to point out that the OT is filled with this type of "right" and "wrong" derived from a primitive society.) The fact is, that humans have a clan mentality because we are social animals. Concepts of "right" and "wrong" developed to protect the clan. While the same concepts were not afforded to others viewed outside their society, which we still exhibit today. (especially evident in Republicans and Democrats!)

 

Human society changes along with their concepts of "right" and "wrong" and even within the same society concepts of "right" and "wrong" differ. If "right" and "wrong" is a concept given to us by a supernatural being than why have these concepts changed so much during the course of human history? The only reasonable conclusion is they are human constructs.

[chefranden]

I remain a Christian because I believe it to be true. I believe there are some convincing signs that point to this which I hope to share. First and foremost before even beginning to attempt justify a Christian Biblical God, ...

 

in peace; Jacques

 

Hello Jacques,

 

I'm excited to hear more from you. I will not address anything yet because Han has already made much the same points I would have.

 

chef

[Guest Dear Dogma]

Good morning all,

I am thankful for the overall tone of the posted comments and look forward to our continued dialogue. I will try to answer the responses in one summary comment here.

The way I see it so far, I believe I will have to address two different "camps" of thought here, one holding that there is no such thing as an objective right and wrong (resulting in no legitimate human rights) the other maintaining that these rights are legitimate and exist although the determining agent of them is the advancement of societies in time driven by a natural sense of co-operation for the betterment of the tribe.

Addressing the first camp I would argue that if pressed, most if not all would abandon this position if they felt their rights had been violated (affirming their validity). If Hans Solo where accused of a crime, lets say stealing something and arrested, he would be read his rights "You have the right to remain silent, right to an attourney, judged by your peers,.....etc." Unless I am mistaken, I would think he would, especially if innocent, cheer their validity. This example is a good for two reasons, first because accomanying the opening sentences right to "remain silent" is the inerrant right to "remain vocal" I believe all here would hold their right to freely retain and express their opinion. If not I doubt one would remain to dialougue very long. Secondly the example proves valuable because it brings into the dialouge the concept of justice. A concept I believe is unreatainable without an objective right and wrong.

Moving to address the second camp of thought, I wonder how any particular human right could be determined if ruled by the principle you present. If the determining agent is the better good of the co-operative, then the objective of the provided example would be to ensure a society that had less stealing. If this is the case than the "justice" served by aboloshing the afforded rights expressed above held by most Christian influenced western nations in favour of a significantly more effective "justice" held by most islamic nations would be neccesary. Clearly the theft deterant of having ones hand cut off particularly with out the absolute assurance of a "fair trial" is far more effective, at least it seems witnessable by how little theft they have in their society as compared ours.

What makes any society particularly more "just" is it's relative alignment with an actual right and wrong, not it's alignment to the betterment of the pack.

 

I'm interested to hear your responses on this.

 

peace; Jacques

[Ouroboros]

Good morning all,

I am thankful for the overall tone of the posted comments and look forward to our continued dialogue. I will try to answer the responses in one summary comment here.

The way I see it so far, I believe I will have to address two different "camps" of thought here, one holding that there is no such thing as an objective right and wrong (resulting in no legitimate human rights) the other maintaining that these rights are legitimate and exist although the determining agent of them is the advancement of societies in time driven by a natural sense of co-operation for the betterment of the tribe.

Addressing the first camp I would argue that if pressed, most if not all would abandon this position if they felt their rights had been violated (affirming their validity). If Hans Solo where accused of a crime, lets say stealing something and arrested, he would be read his rights "You have the right to remain silent, right to an attourney, judged by your peers,.....etc." Unless I am mistaken, I would think he would, especially if innocent, cheer their validity. This example is a good for two reasons, first because accomanying the opening sentences right to "remain silent" is the inerrant right to "remain vocal" I believe all here would hold their right to freely retain and express their opinion. If not I doubt one would remain to dialougue very long. Secondly the example proves valuable because it brings into the dialouge the concept of justice. A concept I believe is unreatainable without an objective right and wrong.

So you're saying that the law and justice we have is the definition of Absolute Right? Do you know that almost all law is based on case law, and not on some established precondition morality? Our law is mostly made out of the opinion of the peers, that's why we have a jury. If absolute right and wrong did exist, no jury would be necessary, only a judge to interpret the absolute law. That system was used once, but it doesn't work, because the law then actually become arbitrary based on the judge instead.

 

All the rights you account for up there have been established by man. We have decided that these "rights" are the rights of man. But the question you ask is if there is an "absolute" right or wrong, meaning, something that is right or wrong in a context without the judgment of man, without the interpretation of man, without subjective opinion, without arbitrary influence... The miranda law you mention is something that didn't exist 100 years ago, because now one consider that being a "right." There has been discussions about removing that right too. How can you remove an absolute right?

 

Justice, the way it works today, is a moving "organism". It changes with times and culture. Our law today is not the same as 1 year ago, or 2 years ago, or 10, 100, 1000... Today racism is considered wrong, but it wasn't in any culture a few hundred years ago. It moves and changes.

 

And regarding stealing, is it wrong to steal an apple from the neighbors apple tree and give to a starving child? Is stealing from the thief really stealing? And much more. Justice, right and wrong, is decided through the trial, not through absolute laws.

 

Moving to address the second camp of thought, I wonder how any particular human right could be determined if ruled by the principle you present.

You surely have a lot to learn. Feinberg is considered one of the most influential modern philosopher in justice, law, morality, and ethics. You pretty much rejected the view of who whole justice system in one sweeping statement. Good for you!

 

If the determining agent is the better good of the co-operative, then the objective of the provided example would be to ensure a society that had less stealing. If this is the case than the "justice" served by aboloshing the afforded rights expressed above held by most Christian influenced western nations in favour of a significantly more effective "justice" held by most islamic nations would be neccesary. Clearly the theft deterant of having ones hand cut off particularly with out the absolute assurance of a "fair trial" is far more effective, at least it seems witnessable by how little theft they have in their society as compared ours.

I can tell that you don't consider Islamic nations to have pure justice, while you think that secular, modern, moderate justice, judged through the eyes of the peers, is more absolute! Fascinating. If there's any society today which takes justice to the extreme and interpret it absolutely, it would be the Muslim countries, not the west. The western nations today do not see justice as absolute. Only fundamentalists do.

 

What makes any society particularly more "just" is it's relative alignment with an actual right and wrong, not it's alignment to the betterment of the pack.

So give me something that is actual right and actual wrong. You haven't really given us any example of it. There's an absolute integer which represents one, which is 1. Now, present and absolute, universal right. Which is, a right that everyone in the world would agree is a right, regardless of culture, society, background, history, and context. You keep on talking about a concept as it did exist, but you yet have to present a factual evidence for said concept. To just throw out "absolute this" or "absolute that" is just verbal diarrhea. If you know it exists, then you know what it is, so give us an absolute right.

 

And about the Miranda Right, it has only been around since the 60's or so, and only in America. Now, on what grounds, or what exactly is the argument, for the Miranda Law to be a universal and absolute right? Think about this. Did that law get into place because of God revealing it? Or was it taken from the Bible? Or was it the court who used logic, reason, rational thought, to realize that this was something that would protect people from harm?

[Ouroboros]

Just a short notice about Joel Feinberg:

 

Joel Feinberg (October 19, 1926 - March 29, 2004) was an American political and social philosopher. He is known for his work in the fields of individual rights and the authority of the state.[1] Feinberg helped in shaping the American legal landscape. [2]

 

His writings about law, justice, rights, and wrongs, is some of the leading material in this area. You claim that he's wrong. The guy wrote several volumes of arguments about this, and you still think you know better. Amazing...

[Guest Dear Dogma]

How does one determine a law condemning slavery is any more just than one condoning it? Sorry after re-read your posted thoughts were on racism not slavery but I believe my question is still valid

 

Sorry bear with me as I am struggling a bit negotiating the site and am severely technologically challenged. You made several points which might be best addressed one at a time.

 

I believe there are certainly degrees of moral culpability in any wrong act which deminish or increase regarding the situation. Stealing an apple to feed the poor or from a theif would would of neccesity be less than say for fun or to show off, but it would'nt make stealing right. stealing is wrong. IMO.

 

I contend the act of stealing is wrong If the act of stealing is not wrong please help me understand. The examples you gave serve only to reduce culpability not justify the position that stealing is not wrong.

 

It's seems to me you attempt to justify a set of conditions that would somehow create allowance for "rightful-stealing" I wonder if I had chosen to use rape as the exampled crime if you could provide me with some set of conditions which would somehow justify a "rightful-rape" ? Rape is wrong as is stealing and no set of contributing conditions can change the fact that they are indeed wrongs, which would lead to certain rights ie; I have the right not be raped because rape is wrong.

 

 

MODERATOR EDIT TO MERGE POSTS. (Please try to post all your thoughts in one post, rather than 5 separate ones)

[Neon Genesis]

I believe there are certainly degrees of moral culpability in any wrong act which deminish or increase regarding the situation. Stealing an apple to feed the poor or from a theif would would of neccesity be less than say for fun or to show off, but it would'nt make stealing right. stealing is wrong. IMO.

 

I contend the act of stealing is wrong If the act of stealing is not wrong please help me understand. The examples you gave serve only to reduce culpability not justify the position that stealing is not wrong.

So, are you saying that when Jesus stole the two donkeys to ride into the streets of Jerasualem to show off that Jesus sinned, since stealing is always wrong? What about when Rahab the prostitute lied to save the Isrealites and god approved of Rahab's lying and saved her and family? If sins are always absolutely wrong, then since lying is a sin, then lying is always wrong, so according to you, god approved of something wrong and god sinned.

 

It's seems to me you attempt to justify a set of conditions that would somehow create allowance for "rightful-stealing" I wonder if I had chosen to use rape as the exampled crime if you could provide me with some set of conditions which would somehow justify a "rightful-rape" ? Rape is wrong as is stealing and no set of contributing conditions can change the fact that they are indeed wrongs, which would lead to certain rights ie; I have the right not be raped because rape is wrong.

Of course rape is wrong, but then are you willing to admit that god sinned for commanding rape in the bible? Numbers 31:7-18

So they made war against Midian, just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and (A)they killed every male.

 

8They killed the kings of Midian along with the rest of their slain: (B)Evi and Rekem and ©Zur and Hur and Reba, the five kings of Midian; they also killed (D)Balaam the son of Beor with the sword.

 

9The sons of Israel captured the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their cattle and all their flocks and all their goods they plundered.

 

10Then they burned all their cities where they lived and all their camps with fire.

 

11(E)They took all the spoil and all the prey, both of man and of beast.

 

12They brought the captives and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest and to the congregation of the sons of Israel, to the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan opposite Jericho.

 

13Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the congregation went out to meet them outside the camp.

 

14Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who had come from service in the war.

 

15And Moses said to them, "Have you spared (F)all the women?

 

16"(G)Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of (H)Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD.

 

17"(I)Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.

 

18"But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.

[Guest Dear Dogma]

Thank you moderator for combining my posts. As I've mentioned this whole cyberworld thing is a bit of a challenge to me.Typing with two fingers doesnt make my posts come together any quicker either. Especially in a format such as this where every statement I make will be under the microscope. It is also quite challenging to debate with several different view points, coexist seems to beieve in an objective right and wrong while Han does not.

If I have a few minutes away from work I can post a few thoughts on one or two replies. And although I was fully aware of the challenges facing a Christian in the colloseum when I chose to enter it , I encourage you all to be patient and understanding if for no other reason than the sport of it.

I do not yet want to move to Christian apologetics with out the hashing out of the existance of an objective right and wrong, I believe I would be wasting both our time.

F.Y.I. I do not come from the biblical literalist fundamental school. I choose to conform to the teachings of the Catholic Church as I mentioned in my info section. I would challenge anyone holding to the idea that the creation naratives must be accepted litterally, that the earth was created in 6 24 hour periods, that the earth is no more than 8000 yrs old, or that there is no conceptual symbolism in a legend that has a talking snake as one of it's main charachters. I hope that helps in our dialougue.

 

Already 15 min past closing the shop, hopefully I can check in tommorow.

 

peace; Dear Dogma

[ghostchild]

Thank you moderator for combining my posts. As I've mentioned this whole cyberworld thing is a bit of a challenge to me.Typing with two fingers doesnt make my posts come together any quicker either. Especially in a format such as this where every statement I make will be under the microscope. It is also quite challenging to debate with several different view points, coexist seems to beieve in an objective right and wrong while Han does not.

If I have a few minutes away from work I can post a few thoughts on one or two replies. And although I was fully aware of the challenges facing a Christian in the colloseum when I chose to enter it , I encourage you all to be patient and understanding if for no other reason than the sport of it.

I do not yet want to move to Christian apologetics with out the hashing out of the existance of an objective right and wrong, I believe I would be wasting both our time.

F.Y.I. I do not come from the biblical literalist fundamental school. I choose to conform to the teachings of the Catholic Church as I mentioned in my info section. I would challenge anyone holding to the idea that the creation naratives must be accepted litterally, that the earth was created in 6 24 hour periods, that the earth is no more than 8000 yrs old, or that there is no conceptual symbolism in a legend that has a talking snake as one of it's main charachters. I hope that helps in our dialougue.

 

Already 15 min past closing the shop, hopefully I can check in tommorow.

 

peace; Dear Dogma

I really think that the concept of absolute morality is irrelevant to the human race. Stealing, for example, was not considered even a little bit wrong by many cultures prior to western intervention. Many people today still feel this way, in fact. These people have no concept of individual property, holding any and all things in common with each other. It isn't their house, it's *a* house. It isn't their soup bowl, it's just a soup bowl. Everybody's soup bowl. Therefore theft quickly becomes completely impossible. if you take a soup bowl off of someone while they're using it, that isn't theft at all, it's simply a lack of respect for the individual who was using it. you didn't steal the soup bowl, you attacked the man holding it, you see? the violation was not a theft, it was an attack on the person holding the soup bowl, and a prevention of him using it to eat soup out of. at no point does the soup bowl enter the equation. Nobody cares who owned it. if the man had not been using the soup bowl at the time, it would have been totally okay. if he wants a soup bowl later, he'll find one nobody is using, probably in the communal storage area where his people have put together a store of enough soup bowls for everyone.

 

The concept of theft comes from the concept of property, that is that individuals can have exclusive rights to control access to an object or a place, etc. This is something that most cultures certainly accept, but if you do not believe in the concept of property the concept of theft becomes irrelevant. Do you think these people are still violating a fundamental law? if so, how is that violation relevant? These people do not care that others take and use objects that they posessed first. nobody can steal from them, because they don't own anything. Therefore, the concept of property MUST exist before theft is even possible. in other words, theft is dependant on other factors to even be possible, and is therefore not a moral absolute dictated to us by a higher authority.

 

A more basic example of of a fundamental rule is the one violated by the taking of the soup bowl when it was in use. This crime, an interference with a person going about their daily business, thereby making his life more difficult, is however still not absolute. After all, there could be many reasons why one had to get a soup bowl immediately and could not wait. a better example is a traffic incident where you are cut off in traffic and swerve off the road into a ditch. An offense, right? what if the person in the other vehicle was suffering a medical crisis, needed to get to the hospital in a great hurry, and would have died if he had driven slower? is it still wrong that he potentially caused harm, even if he had done his theoretical best to avoid the incident altogether? he needed to get through traffic in order to live. has he done something fundamentally wrong? i do not believe so, any more than i believe taking a loaf of bread from a supermarket when you have no money and no food to eat is fundamentally wrong either.

 

I think that the rules held by differing societies are similar because they work. Without prohibitions against murder, or against abuse or other violence, people simply cannot live together in a group, and are therefore helpless in the face of the world and other people who have those rules. why do they need to come from a deity, when human beings are perfectly capable of figuring out for themselves that if you hurt and kill everyone around you, nobody is going to help you harvest your crop or make a home for yourself? we are better together than apart, and our more obvious societal rules exist because everybody wants other people to be willing to work together. people break rules all the time of course, but in the main, the rules are followed, and not because people are just told to, or they just *are* true. they are followed because people gain personal benefit from a society in which everyone follows those rules.

 

Whether there is an absolute right or wrong kinda doesn't matter. All the rules are meant to mean is a safe world where business and pleasure can operate side by side, safe as possible from fear and attack. most people want this, and that is the real reason rules are followed, not because we're simply told to.

[Hineni]

Maybe this is too simplistic for the arguement, but, as a child of about 9yrs old, all we had in the house was one half can of shortening and one whole potato. I found a dollar that day...it was at a place called the TG&Y. I bought some candy, not for myself, but for the 6 of us. Knowing it wasn't enough, I took other things that I could slip into my shirt. Things like Beenie Weenie's and corn..anything I could make out of the store, undetected. We ate that night, under the gleeming lights of other's x-mas trees. Was that wrong of me, as a nine year old child..to want to feed my family?

 

Sincerely,

Hineni