31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @fmfIf the Nazis had viewed the Bible as an objective standard for right and wrong rather than having had the opinion that everyone establishes their own 'right and wrong' would they have done what they did? I don't think so. The same can be said for any of the mass murderers of the past few centuries.
Didn't you agree with the imposition of same morally-based laws as me [pertaining to the behaviours I listed]?
What would your supposedly "objective" morals have empowered you to actually do about the Nazis?
Simply condemn their actions while wittering on childishly about how the condemnation from others, who don't happen to share your superstitions, was "incoherent"?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou have simply sidestepped all three of my questions.
If the Nazis had viewed the Bible as an objective standard for right and wrong rather than having had the opinion that everyone establishes their own 'right and wrong' would they have done what they did? I don't think so. The same can be said for any of the mass murderers of the past few centuries.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerHow does you unilaterally declaring your own personal moral standards to be "objective" affect any other person in any real or practical way?
I would not impose my moral stances upon anyone, would you?
As far as I can tell it's just some sort of internal self-righteousness or validation routine/process that has no consequence that's external to you.
Take for example your own personal stance that homosexual sex is immoral. How does that affect anyone other than yourself?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerThe three questions were about how your morality might translate into law, how your morality might translate into action in the face of "evil", and whether mere supposedly "coherent" condemnation is enough as a manifestation of a moral stance.
We have already discussed what I view to be my objective moral standard. My stance hasn't changed. I refer you to those previous discussions.
Our conversation had in fact reached a point it has not visited before.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWell if "we" (the people/society/...) are not to judge what do you propose we do with law-breakers?
Not at all. God will judge righteously. Who are we to judge?
Originally posted by @fmf to djbeckerPresumably he practises abstinence.
Take for example your own personal stance that homosexual sex is immoral. How does that affect anyone other than yourself?
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @fmfIf the Bible really is God's revelation of how He wants us to live then it will affect them in the end whether they accept it or not.
How does you unilaterally declaring your own personal moral standards to be "objective" affect any other person in any real or practical way?
As far as I can tell it's just some sort of internal self-righteousness or validation routine/process that has no consequence that's external to you.
Take for example your own personal stance that homosexual sex is immoral. How does that affect anyone other than yourself?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerThis 'answer' has sidestepped the two very specific questions I have asked you.
If the Bible really is God's revelation of how He wants us to live then it will affect them in the end whether they accept it or not.
Originally posted by @fmfdj2becker, do you believe that framing/labelling your own personal opinion/stance ~ that homosexual sex is immoral ~ as an "objective" idea, gives it more credibility or traction with other people? ~ Homosexuals, for example.
How does you unilaterally declaring your own personal moral standards to be "objective" affect any other person in any real or practical way?
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @fmfMy stance hasn't changed. I refer you to those previous discussions.
The three questions were about how your morality might translate into law, how your morality might translate into action in the face of "evil", and whether mere supposedly "coherent" condemnation is enough as a manifestation of a moral stance.
Our conversation had in fact reached a point it has not visited before.
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @fmfI can only talk for myself. My stance on the issue hasn't changed. I refer you to those previous discussions.
dj2becker, do you believe that framing/labelling your own personal opinion/stance ~ that homosexual sex is immoral ~ as an "objective" idea, gives it more credibility or traction with other people? ~ Homosexuals, for example.
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Let justice take it's course, but we can still pray for them and try to rehabilitate them.
Well if "we" (the people/society/...) are not to judge what do you propose we do with law-breakers?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerSo you concede that you are talking subjectively then.
I can only talk for myself.
Originally posted by @fmfI cannot speak for other people with regards to whether or not the objective morals that I believe exist have traction with them. Im sure there are many objective truths that have existed that are/were rejected by quite a few people.
So you concede that you are talking subjectively then.