If sin can be covered up by death, and my sin can be covered up by someone else's death, can I sacrifice other people to cover my sin? I mean sure, we could accept Jesus's sacrifice, but couldn't I also just kill some other person?
If sin can be covered up by death, and my sin can be covered up by someone else's death, can I sacrifice other people to cover my sin? I mean sure, we could accept Jesus's sacrifice, but couldn't I also just kill some other person?
seems to be working well enough for most organized religions.....
And my point is that in order for us to have a moral freewill a choice must be available: choose right or wrong. If you choose rightly, there are consequences. If you choose wrongly, there are consequence.
No, there aren't any consequences for choosing wrongly, because it doesn't matter what I choose. I'm a sinner only because of the act of creation and the guy making the rules.
You're incorrect in the concept of rather original sin could have been avoided.
Again, you misunderstand me. I never mentioned whether it could be avoided; in fact, it doesn't even matter whether original sin could have been avoided.
My biggest issue with Original Sin is that I'm held accountable and punished for something I did not do. If a man is convicted of a crime, we don't put his kids in jail.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
Kindly read the first post about sacrifice of innocence/clean animal. We humans cannot be sacrificed since they are not innocent under the sin of Adam. It requires a clean animal without sin (by definition, animals do not know morality).
So, think a bad thought, chuck a bunny off an overpass, another bad thought, another bunny?
Do I get more sin covering for more animals? Is this like DnD giving a minimum of 1 XP per thing you kill, so that I can boil an anthill and go to heaven?
These two things are completely incomparable. You are using a flawed analogy.
The universe was created in such a way that it is impossible for Humans to go through life without gravity. Humans are not punished eternally for being affected by gravity.
We were made in such a way that it is impossible to go through life without sin. Humans are punished eternally for being affected by sin.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
Dechs Kaison, to be fair to ColonelCoo he is arguing against multiple things. Most people are questioning him about the justification of blood sacrifices. That's what the bit about gravity is about. He is saying that no one is complaining about the necessity of gravity, despite the fact it kills people. He is questioning why we're fixated on the reaction between innocent blood and sin, and not other aspects of reality.
I'm pretty sure only you, Dechs Kaison, are talking about the issue with Original Sin. So, less of ColonelCoo post is dedicated to that point. I agree your analogy about sin and gravity, but I don't think it's a fair response to what ColonelCoo is saying. But, I think it can stand on its own anyway.
Dechs Kaison, to be fair to ColonelCoo he is arguing against mutable things. Most people are questioning him about the justification of blood sacrifices. That's what the bit about gravity is about. He is saying that no one is complaining about the necessity of gravity, despite the fact it kills people. He is questioning why we're fixated on the reaction between innocent blood and sin, and not other aspects of reality.
I'm pretty sure only you, Dechs Kaison, is talking about the issue with Original Sin. So, less of his post is dedicated to that point. I agree your analogy about sin and gravity is a good one, but I don't think i's a fair response to what ColonelCoo is saying. But, I think it can stand on its own anyway.
I'm honestly less concerned with the Original Sin bit. I still think the two are not comparable.
Gravity serves a very real purpose, and yes, it has mortal consequences if ignored. It is, in fact, a measurable force, even. If God created everything (gravity included), he didn't create a way to ignore the consequences of gravity. He doesn't punish humans on an eternal level for being affected by gravity.
Sin is no such thing. It's not a measurable or physical quality. It's something we do. It's also something that has eternal consequences. The God who created us to be incapable of avoiding sin judges us for not being able to avoid it. Previously He demanded blood sacrifice to atone for being the way we were created. Now the blood of the Christ is enough.
These two things are not even remotely comparable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
He's not trying to compare gravity to original sin, since one is something God created and the other is (arguable) due to the actions of man.
He is comparing gravity to blood scarifies, since both those are (presumably) properties of reality created by God.
I understand that; I guess I'm just having trouble phrasing this. Let me try a different angle.
God creates a reality with these two properties:
1. Gravity exists.
2. Committing sin requires a blood sacrifice to atone.
I'm saying that these two properties aren't even remotely similar. That's the simplest way I can word both, and look at how different the structure is, alone. One is a force that just exits. One is some seemingly arbitrary rule that sets up consequence for action. It's a very poor analogy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
When you say that "God made the means to cover sin" does that mean he could have chosen any means he wanted, but decided that an animal sacrifice was the best way to go about it?
Would a system in which sin was covered by, say, genuine remorse, apology and penance have been possible instead, but God just chose to go the route of bleeding animals?
I would be more inclined to believe that atheism is a side affect of non-ritualized religions. That the very short life span of atheism would not even had started by now, nor would civilization be advanced to where it is today without non-sacrificial monotheism (at least regional monotheism). I don't see how an atheistic belief system would overcome a polytheistic with sacrifices religious and political organizations. I am fairly certain that polytheistic system would be just as intolerant of atheism as they were of Christianity. That Christians were willing to suffer and die for their beliefs helped overcome the religions that were in power. Not saying that Christianity didn't likewise punish free-thinkers later nor abuse it powers to kill/main/destroy/corrupt/molest etc for it's tenure in power.
That's a hard sell. For one, there have been non-believers ever since people started believing in anything (not just gods). There were at least a few Hellenistic Greeks (including Thucydides, I think) who speculated that the Olympian gods were just metaphors for human impulses and desires. You see it here and there all over the world... but I think the relative political strength of religious institutions, combined with the lack of effective widespread communications, made an atheist movement difficult until relatively recently.
Don't discount our smart ancestors though! They knew bunk when they saw it, they just couldn't get away with telling everyone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Because I grew up in a society that thinks its wrong?
Wait, so because you grew up in a society, you are automatically bound to think exactly as that society does? So it's impossible for anyone who grows up in a society that thinks X to disagree with someone who thinks X?
Or are you instead saying that anyone who grows up in a society that thinks X is morally obligated to think X within the boundaries of that society?
Only if you know with absolute certainly that your arguments are rooted in absolute fact can you make the argument that your ethics or moral are objectively correct.
It's objectively correct that something cannot be X and not-X at the same time, for this would be illogical. Right?
Ok, so let's take the case of Malala. You said no, you found this to be morally wrong because you were raised in a society that was. But what about the society she was in? Would you claim it was morally correct for her to get shot for wanting an education?
Except that makes no sense. Something cannot be X and not-X at the same time. How could people shooting her for wanting an education be both completely morally acceptable and not morally acceptable at all at the same time? You're telling me that geographic boundaries determine moral correctness and incorrectness?
Also, notice the widespread outcry against her shooting in Pakistan. So which is it? Does her society say it's right or wrong? Or is it possible for a society to disagree on what is right or wrong? But then, wouldn't that be a case of a society arguing both X and not-X? How is this possible?
Regarding blood sacrifice itself, I find it quite funny that the sacrifice of the Christian God actuality resulted in the end of all blood sacrifices to all Gods. As Christianity spread worldwide those other gods lost their followers and thus ended blood sacrifice.
False.
Certain denominations of Judaism still hold that animal sacrifices are a part of their rituals. They do not practice such sacrifices because sacrifices are meant to be done at the Temple at Jerusalem, which no longer stands.
Islam practices animal sacrifice.
Certain groups of Hindus practice animal sacrifice.
Certain Sikhs practice animal sacrifice.
Animal sacrifice rituals are still found amongst traditional African religions.
To say that Christianity ended all animal sacrifice is false. Yes, Christianity displaced many religions, but it far from ended all animal sacrifice.
Now that blood sacrifices are no longer needed and only minimal religious expression endures with them, we gain a sense of morality that blood sacrifices are immoral.
It's illogical for someone to claim that God is all powerful yet requires blood in order to expiate a sin. It is completely arbitrary and nonsensical to claim that a blood sacrifice is necessary for God's forgiveness when God's forgiveness could have been given without any ritual at all. Indeed, Paul himself says that all animal sacrifices were of no real consequence anyway, and the Old Testament is rife with God proclaiming that he cares not for the sacrifices of Israel.
They tend to express joy over the sacrifice of the humans in utero.
Except for the part where the abortion process does not mean people ritually kill unborn fetuses, divide their flesh, eat them, and then offer burnt pieces of them to a deity in expiation of sins or for favors.
Highroller, while I disagree with relativistic morality, your explanation overlooks the different contexts and perspectives. The idea behind relativistic morality is that something is or isn't moral based on different perspectives. So, the x and ¬x problem does not arise. @magickware99
For me, relativistic morality is essentially indefensible. If nothing is truly "right" or "wrong" how can you claim that subjective morality is "right?" You can't without contradicting yourself (not that anyone could tell you that contradiction is 'wrong,' but I hope you get my point).
For reasons why morality wouldn't be subjective, I like Robert Wright's Evolution of God. He makes the point that certain forms of morality work better than others. If you have a society where it's alright to murder and steal, that society would quickly fall apart and be replaced with one more stable. Other issues can be more subtal, and take longer to fail, but it is safe to say some ways of running a society are better than others (once a goal is set upon).
Example: Bill Gates recalls once being invited to speak in Saudi Arabia and finding himself facing a segregated audience. Four-fifths of the listeners were men, on the left. The remaining one-fifth were women, all covered in black cloaks and veils, on the right. A partition separated the two groups. Toward the end, in the question-and-answer session, a member of the audience noted that Saudi Arabia aimed to be one of the Top 10 countries in the world in technology by 2010 and asked if that was realistic. “Well, if you’re not fully utilizing half the talent in the country,” Gates said, “you’re not going to get too close to the Top 10.” The small group on the right erupted in wild cheering.
Highroller, while I disagree with relativistic morality, your explanation overlooks the different contexts and perspectives. The idea behind relativistic morality is that something is or isn't moral based on different perspectives. So, the x and ¬x problem does not arise.
Incorrect.
Allow me to explain. I believe that it is wrong to steal my car. You believe it is not wrong to steal my car. According to moral relativism, it would be wrong for me to steal my car because I believe it is, but it is right for you to steal my car because you believe it is.
The problem is that moral relativism holds that both positions are equally valid, that stealing Highroller's car is both right and wrong. This is illogical. Something cannot be both X and not X.
Now, you would respond, as you did above, with the fact that this is the point of moral relativism, that it's based on opinion. But that doesn't change the fact that the opinions are in conflict based on the same event. If Taylor steals Highroller's car, which opinion wins? Taylor's that stealing Highroller's car was morally right, or Highroller's that it was morally wrong? It cannot be both morally right and morally wrong, that's entirely illogical.
You would probably argue that it's morally right for Taylor and morally wrong for Highroller, but that doesn't make any sense at all, and not just because it's still repeating the same problem as detailed above. The question then becomes what exactly does it MEAN to say that something is morally right or morally wrong? What does it MEAN to say that stealing a car is morally right or morally wrong?
Consider the following two statements:
1. I don't like it when people steal cars
2. Stealing cars is morally wrong
You're trying to argue those two statements are equivalent. But they're saying completely different things. Here, let's switch it up:
1. I don't like it when people listen to dubstep.
2. Listening to dubstep is morally wrong.
The first is a statement of preference. I don't like dubstep. This statement is a matter of my own personal taste, which applies, by virtue of being personal, only to me. Furthermore, it is a statement of fact. I don't like dubstep is a fact. We cannot debate this, any more than we can debate the fact that I perceive the sky to be blue and the grass to be green. All three are basic observations.
The second, on the other hand, is NOT a statement of preference, but instead is a moral statement, and notice the difference between the two. When I say something is morally wrong, this has nothing to do with whether or not I like that something. It means that I am making a statement about how people should behave. I am saying that people should not do that wrong thing.
This is the opposite of a statement of personal preference, in that it is specifically meant to apply to more people than just me. To say that people should not steal Highroller's car does not simply apply to Highroller, or to people who don't want to steal Highroller's car anyway. That makes no sense. It means that anyone who wants to steal Highroller's car, even if they believe they are justified, are in the wrong to do so.
Moreover, the moral statement, unlike the statement of personal preference, IS something that can be argued. You can't argue a statement that Highroller doesn't like dubstep, because that's a flat fact. But to say that listening to dubstep is wrong is saying that everyone is under a moral imperative not to listen to dubstep, and this statement not only can be justified, but requires justification in order for it to be valid.
In short, moral relativism flies entirely in the very role of ethics, which is the study of how people should behave, by demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of what ethical statements actually are saying.
Because I grew up in a society that thinks its wrong?
Wait, so because you grew up in a society, you are automatically bound to think exactly as that society does? So it's impossible for anyone who grows up in a society that thinks X to disagree with someone who thinks X?
Or are you instead saying that anyone who grows up in a society that thinks X is morally obligated to think X within the boundaries of that society?
Neither.
Think of it in terms of white supremacy in the U.S. back in the 19th century. The great majority of abolitionists still believed that blacks were inferior to whites, and that blacks and whites cannot coexist for various reasons. Even being progressive in that they wanted equality, they still couldn't bring themselves to comprehend actual equality. They were a product for their times.
Even if you disagree with your society, the general trend is that you still think within the context of that society's PoV and general framework.
Ok, so let's take the case of Malala. You said no, you found this to be morally wrong because you were raised in a society that was. But what about the society she was in? Would you claim it was morally correct for her to get shot for wanting an education?
Except that makes no sense. Something cannot be X and not-X at the same time. How could people shooting her for wanting an education be both completely morally acceptable and not morally acceptable at all at the same time? You're telling me that geographic boundaries determine moral correctness and incorrectness?
Also, notice the widespread outcry against her shooting in Pakistan. So which is it? Does her society say it's right or wrong? Or is it possible for a society to disagree on what is right or wrong? But then, wouldn't that be a case of a society arguing both X and not-X? How is this possible?
Sure they can.
It is morally unacceptable to me that someone would be shot for wanting an education. Evidently it is morally acceptable for certain people in Pakistan to shoot someone for wanting an education.
X and -X only work in the context that you know the absolutes and the objective facts regarding said context. If one moral belief is objectively right, then anything that goes against it would be objectively wrong.
But if you do not know whether a moral belief is objectively right, then all you can do is argue with the knowledge that you currently have. In which case you can never make the argument that something is objectively better.
Here's a slightly less charged situation to work with besides the one you keep repeating.
Koreans like to eat dog meat. Americans do not. Americans think it's morally disgusting to eat animals that people keep as pets. Koreans do not.
If Taylor steals Highroller's car, which opinion wins? Taylor's that stealing Highroller's car was morally right, or Highroller's that it was morally wrong? It cannot be both morally right and morally wrong, that's entirely illogical.
If Taylor finds ice cream delicious and Highroller finds it unpalatable, which opinion wins? Taylor's opinion that ice cream is delicious, or Highroller's that ice cream is unpalatable? It cannot be both delicious and unpalatable, that's entirely illogical.
The point (other than ice cream is--in fact--delicious) is that in a moral relativistic system there is no objective right or wrong. Things can only be right or wrong within the perspective of an individual or society. X and ¬X simply don't exist outside of people's perspectives. Since X would not exist in the objective perspective, there is no contradiction there. Within a person's perspective something would be X or ¬X, but not both. Like ice cream would be delicious or unpalatable, but not both.
In moral relativistic system "right" and "wrong" exist only as subjective opinions, much like taste.
Think of it in terms of white supremacy in the U.S. back in the 19th century. The great majority of abolitionists still believed that blacks were inferior to whites, and that blacks and whites cannot coexist for various reasons. Even being progressive in that they wanted equality, they still couldn't bring themselves to comprehend actual equality. They were a product for their times.
Even if you disagree with your society, the general trend is that you still think within the context of that society's PoV and general framework.
Your errors are apparent, however:
1. Your argument hinges entirely on a widespread societal paradigm, ignoring the fact that societies are composed of numerous different viewpoints (for instance our society both condones and opposes Creationism, condones and opposes abortion, condones and opposes military spending, condones and opposes Obamacare). Therefore, your argument fails, because one cannot say that there is a unified cultural opinion.
2. People are as much defined by how they disagree with others as they are by how much they agree with them.
Sure they can.
It is morally unacceptable to me that someone would be shot for wanting an education. Evidently it is morally acceptable for certain people in Pakistan to shoot someone for wanting an education.
"Certain people" does not constitute a culture, thereby making the appeal to cultural differences an empty one.
Furthermore, are you arguing that the majority is always right automatically?
X and -X only work in the context that you know the absolutes and the objective facts regarding said context. If one moral belief is objectively right, then anything that goes against it would be objectively wrong.
But if you do not know whether a moral belief is objectively right, then all you can do is argue with the knowledge that you currently have. In which case you can never make the argument that something is objectively better.
Of course you can, based on the factual claims and logical basis of the arguments.
Koreans like to eat dog meat. Americans do not. Americans think it's morally disgusting to eat animals that people keep as pets. Koreans do not.
Which is right.
Every single statement you made above is entirely unfounded.
First of all, the statement "Americans think it's morally disgusting to eat animals that people keep as pets" is clearly unfounded given the fact that many animals people keep as pets are livestock animals.
Second, both statements made about Koreans regarding the consumption of dog meat are entirely unfounded. This is actually a controversial issue in Korea. Only a minority of Koreans report actually eating dogs, and there is a vocal movement against the eating of dogs. In addition, there is a widespread belief that the eating of dogs is both anachronistic to modern day Korea, and a harmful stereotype against Koreans. As it stands legally, dogs are classified as pets and not livestock (although the primary breed consumed is a landrace dog that is different from the breeds commonly kept as pets), but the slaughter and consumption of them is not illegal.
Here we see the problems of cultural relativism. There is no unified stance in Korea one way or another, as this is a contested issue.
If Taylor steals Highroller's car, which opinion wins? Taylor's that stealing Highroller's car was morally right, or Highroller's that it was morally wrong? It cannot be both morally right and morally wrong, that's entirely illogical.
If Taylor finds ice cream delicious and Highroller finds it unpalatable, which opinion wins? Taylor's opinion that ice cream is delicious, or Highroller's that ice cream is unpalatable? It cannot be both delicious and unpalatable, that's entirely illogical.
Again, this is an incorrect analogy. Taylor finds ice cream delicious and Highroller finds it unpalatable are entirely reconcilable, as both statements can be taken as being correct. It is entirely possible to reconcile Taylor personally finding ice cream delicious and Highroller personally finding ice cream unpalatable.
However, the statements "No one should steal Highroller's car" and "It's ok to steal Highroller's car" cannot be reconciled. They cannot both be taken as true.
You are trying to conflate matters of personal preference with ethical statements. You cannot do this, as they are saying two entirely different things.
Saying "I like ice cream" is a statement of fact, indicating a personal preference. It applies only to the individual saying it, and cannot be contested. Nor does it imply that liking ice cream is in any way superior to another person who does not like ice cream. It's just a matter of personal preference.
On the other hand, saying "to steal a car is wrong" is not a statement of personal preference. It is a statement indicating how people should behave, the operative word being "people." This is a moral imperative extending to more than just the individual making the statement. Furthermore, this statement can be argued, as it's not simply a fact, but an argument, and therefore requires justification.
Honestly, Taylor, I already wrote all of this.
Things can only be right or wrong within the persecutive of an individual or society.
Again, this is a misunderstanding of what right and wrong mean. Moral statements must apply to more than just any individual person subjectively, or else they are completely meaningless. And if the latter, this therefore indicates that moral relativism is completely useless, as it provides nothing useful to ethics, which is the study of how people should act.
X and ¬X simply don't exist outside of people's persecutive.
Then they do not exist, by definition of what moral statements are. As demonstrated, moral relativism and ethics are entirely at odds, and therefore moral relativism is entirely useless as an ethical philosophy.
EDIT: You even said as much in your own post.
Since X would not exist in the objective perspective, there is no contradiction there. Within a person's persecutive something would be X or ¬X, but not both. Like ice cream would be delicious or unpalatable, but not both.
Again, any framework that tries to say that moral statements and statements of personal preference are synonymous has already failed, because they are not the same type of statement by very definition. The latter is something that only applies to one person, the former is a statement of how people should behave.
In moral relativistic system "right" and "wrong" exist only as subjective opinons, much like taste.
Again, this is a misunderstanding of what right and wrong mean. Moral statements must apply to more than just any individual person subjectively, or else they are completely meaningless. And if the latter, this therefore indicates that moral relativism is completely useless, as it provides nothing useful to ethics, which is the study of how people should act.
The point of moral relativism is that--according to it--objective moral statements ARE meaningless. That's the whole premise of the philosophy: That they DON'T apply to more than an individual or society of individuals. "Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it." [1]
All you're doing at this point, Highroller, is begging the question. You are presuposing that there is an objective "right" or "wrong," but--since that's what we're debating--you can't do that. You have to PROVE it.
However, I do agree we are talking in circles at this point. If I can't make you see what you're doing, I can't make you see what you're doing. I don't feel like going round an' round. State your closing arguments to me. I'll not respond so you can have the last word.
You miss my point. Few people are willing to take the torch in order to die into nothingness. It certainly doesn't draw many converts of "follow me into tortured death and after you die you'll just be dead".
I thought your point was that "atheism wouldn't be possible if there were only ritualized religions."
Now, if you meant that atheism doesn't make one feel as good as an eternity in the loving embrace of Jesus (without chucking bunnies off overpasses), yeah, that's probably a good explanation for why lots of people do convert/were converted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Because I grew up in a society that thinks its wrong?
Wait, so because you grew up in a society, you are automatically bound to think exactly as that society does? So it's impossible for anyone who grows up in a society that thinks X to disagree with someone who thinks X?
Or are you instead saying that anyone who grows up in a society that thinks X is morally obligated to think X within the boundaries of that society?
I, for one, sincerely hope not! Ex–muslim here :). Born and brought up in the religion. True believer, etc. Officially apostatised in 2008.
Second, blood sacrifice will be rejected by God if the sacrifice is killing and not a offering. Meaning you cannot kill a man, kill a rabbit and then say I think I'll go kill another 20 people because I still got 20 rabbits.
So, when you say it will be "rejected" by God, does that mean God always has the choice whether to accept or reject a blood sacrifice? Could he, if he wanted to, accept a rabbit you chucked off an overpass, but just chooses not to?
Fourth, the deity's name is Moloch. While it is fair to think that an operation isn't a ritual, to me the careful sequence and following of it is a ritual. The zealotry of those espousing the right to perform the ritual is a match to religious fervor. The giving of money to support the groups is akin to alms and tithes to support the organization. So while it is reasonable to state that abortion is just a killing and removing of a unwanted fetus, from a religious standpoint, it's every bit a ritual sacrifice of a human. Scriptural one of the two gods this was done for was Moloch.
To clarify: the same would be applicable to the death penalty? ie executing criminals is a form of idolatry
Second, blood sacrifice will be rejected by God if the sacrifice is killing and not a offering. Meaning you cannot kill a man, kill a rabbit and then say I think I'll go kill another 20 people because I still got 20 rabbits.
And yet, you go on to later say that abortions, which are not offered up to any deity, are a sacrifice?
Third, since you pick and choose which scriptures you accept and which you reject out of the bible, I will not engage in any prolonged debate regarding their meaning them with you.
Unsurprising, you've run away from every other Scriptural debate with me.
Also, EVERYONE picks and chooses what they will accept and what they will reject out of the Bible. The Bible was never composed as a single unified work, and contradicts itself constantly. The problem is there are those so locked into what they want the Bible to say that they are unwilling see the books of the Bible for what they actually say. They come into the Bible expecting it to be the infallible Word of God and refuse to actually analyze the books for what they really are.
For example your wrongful statement regarding Paul's teaching in his letters. Paul didn't say that sacrifices were not of any importance;
He did, actually. Remember that whole part about how the Law doesn't save but Jesus does? Pretty key point in Galatians.
Fourth, the deity's name is Moloch. While it is fair to think that an operation isn't a ritual, to me the careful sequence and following of it is a ritual. The zealotry of those espousing the right to perform the ritual is a match to religious fervor. The giving of money to support the groups is akin to alms and tithes to support the organization. So while it is reasonable to state that abortion is just a killing and removing of a unwanted fetus, from a religious standpoint, it's every bit a ritual sacrifice of a human. Scriptural one of the two gods this was done for was Moloch.
No, because they're not offering it up to a deity, Moloch or any other. Everything here is just bullcrap.
seems to be working well enough for most organized religions.....
No, there aren't any consequences for choosing wrongly, because it doesn't matter what I choose. I'm a sinner only because of the act of creation and the guy making the rules.
You misunderstand me, then. I'm angered that I'm held accountable and punished for the way He made me.
Again, you misunderstand me. I never mentioned whether it could be avoided; in fact, it doesn't even matter whether original sin could have been avoided.
My biggest issue with Original Sin is that I'm held accountable and punished for something I did not do. If a man is convicted of a crime, we don't put his kids in jail.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
So, think a bad thought, chuck a bunny off an overpass, another bad thought, another bunny?
Do I get more sin covering for more animals? Is this like DnD giving a minimum of 1 XP per thing you kill, so that I can boil an anthill and go to heaven?
They're not innocence/clean either?
These two things are completely incomparable. You are using a flawed analogy.
The universe was created in such a way that it is impossible for Humans to go through life without gravity. Humans are not punished eternally for being affected by gravity.
We were made in such a way that it is impossible to go through life without sin. Humans are punished eternally for being affected by sin.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
I'm pretty sure only you, Dechs Kaison, are talking about the issue with Original Sin. So, less of ColonelCoo post is dedicated to that point. I agree your analogy about sin and gravity, but I don't think it's a fair response to what ColonelCoo is saying. But, I think it can stand on its own anyway.
I'm honestly less concerned with the Original Sin bit. I still think the two are not comparable.
Gravity serves a very real purpose, and yes, it has mortal consequences if ignored. It is, in fact, a measurable force, even. If God created everything (gravity included), he didn't create a way to ignore the consequences of gravity. He doesn't punish humans on an eternal level for being affected by gravity.
Sin is no such thing. It's not a measurable or physical quality. It's something we do. It's also something that has eternal consequences. The God who created us to be incapable of avoiding sin judges us for not being able to avoid it. Previously He demanded blood sacrifice to atone for being the way we were created. Now the blood of the Christ is enough.
These two things are not even remotely comparable.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
He is comparing gravity to blood sacrifice, since both those are (presumably) properties of reality created by God.
I understand that; I guess I'm just having trouble phrasing this. Let me try a different angle.
God creates a reality with these two properties:
1. Gravity exists.
2. Committing sin requires a blood sacrifice to atone.
I'm saying that these two properties aren't even remotely similar. That's the simplest way I can word both, and look at how different the structure is, alone. One is a force that just exits. One is some seemingly arbitrary rule that sets up consequence for action. It's a very poor analogy.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Would a system in which sin was covered by, say, genuine remorse, apology and penance have been possible instead, but God just chose to go the route of bleeding animals?
That's a hard sell. For one, there have been non-believers ever since people started believing in anything (not just gods). There were at least a few Hellenistic Greeks (including Thucydides, I think) who speculated that the Olympian gods were just metaphors for human impulses and desires. You see it here and there all over the world... but I think the relative political strength of religious institutions, combined with the lack of effective widespread communications, made an atheist movement difficult until relatively recently.
Don't discount our smart ancestors though! They knew bunk when they saw it, they just couldn't get away with telling everyone.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Wait, so because you grew up in a society, you are automatically bound to think exactly as that society does? So it's impossible for anyone who grows up in a society that thinks X to disagree with someone who thinks X?
Or are you instead saying that anyone who grows up in a society that thinks X is morally obligated to think X within the boundaries of that society?
It's objectively correct that something cannot be X and not-X at the same time, for this would be illogical. Right?
Ok, so let's take the case of Malala. You said no, you found this to be morally wrong because you were raised in a society that was. But what about the society she was in? Would you claim it was morally correct for her to get shot for wanting an education?
Except that makes no sense. Something cannot be X and not-X at the same time. How could people shooting her for wanting an education be both completely morally acceptable and not morally acceptable at all at the same time? You're telling me that geographic boundaries determine moral correctness and incorrectness?
Also, notice the widespread outcry against her shooting in Pakistan. So which is it? Does her society say it's right or wrong? Or is it possible for a society to disagree on what is right or wrong? But then, wouldn't that be a case of a society arguing both X and not-X? How is this possible?
False.
Certain denominations of Judaism still hold that animal sacrifices are a part of their rituals. They do not practice such sacrifices because sacrifices are meant to be done at the Temple at Jerusalem, which no longer stands.
Islam practices animal sacrifice.
Certain groups of Hindus practice animal sacrifice.
Certain Sikhs practice animal sacrifice.
Animal sacrifice rituals are still found amongst traditional African religions.
To say that Christianity ended all animal sacrifice is false. Yes, Christianity displaced many religions, but it far from ended all animal sacrifice.
It's illogical for someone to claim that God is all powerful yet requires blood in order to expiate a sin. It is completely arbitrary and nonsensical to claim that a blood sacrifice is necessary for God's forgiveness when God's forgiveness could have been given without any ritual at all. Indeed, Paul himself says that all animal sacrifices were of no real consequence anyway, and the Old Testament is rife with God proclaiming that he cares not for the sacrifices of Israel.
Except for the part where the abortion process does not mean people ritually kill unborn fetuses, divide their flesh, eat them, and then offer burnt pieces of them to a deity in expiation of sins or for favors.
So bull****.
@magickware99
For me, relativistic morality is essentially indefensible. If nothing is truly "right" or "wrong" how can you claim that subjective morality is "right?" You can't without contradicting yourself (not that anyone could tell you that contradiction is 'wrong,' but I hope you get my point).
For reasons why morality wouldn't be subjective, I like Robert Wright's Evolution of God. He makes the point that certain forms of morality work better than others. If you have a society where it's alright to murder and steal, that society would quickly fall apart and be replaced with one more stable. Other issues can be more subtal, and take longer to fail, but it is safe to say some ways of running a society are better than others (once a goal is set upon).
Example:
Bill Gates recalls once being invited to speak in Saudi Arabia and finding himself facing a segregated audience. Four-fifths of the listeners were men, on the left. The remaining one-fifth were women, all covered in black cloaks and veils, on the right. A partition separated the two groups. Toward the end, in the question-and-answer session, a member of the audience noted that Saudi Arabia aimed to be one of the Top 10 countries in the world in technology by 2010 and asked if that was realistic. “Well, if you’re not fully utilizing half the talent in the country,” Gates said, “you’re not going to get too close to the Top 10.” The small group on the right erupted in wild cheering.
Incorrect.
Allow me to explain. I believe that it is wrong to steal my car. You believe it is not wrong to steal my car. According to moral relativism, it would be wrong for me to steal my car because I believe it is, but it is right for you to steal my car because you believe it is.
The problem is that moral relativism holds that both positions are equally valid, that stealing Highroller's car is both right and wrong. This is illogical. Something cannot be both X and not X.
Now, you would respond, as you did above, with the fact that this is the point of moral relativism, that it's based on opinion. But that doesn't change the fact that the opinions are in conflict based on the same event. If Taylor steals Highroller's car, which opinion wins? Taylor's that stealing Highroller's car was morally right, or Highroller's that it was morally wrong? It cannot be both morally right and morally wrong, that's entirely illogical.
You would probably argue that it's morally right for Taylor and morally wrong for Highroller, but that doesn't make any sense at all, and not just because it's still repeating the same problem as detailed above. The question then becomes what exactly does it MEAN to say that something is morally right or morally wrong? What does it MEAN to say that stealing a car is morally right or morally wrong?
Consider the following two statements:
1. I don't like it when people steal cars
2. Stealing cars is morally wrong
You're trying to argue those two statements are equivalent. But they're saying completely different things. Here, let's switch it up:
1. I don't like it when people listen to dubstep.
2. Listening to dubstep is morally wrong.
The first is a statement of preference. I don't like dubstep. This statement is a matter of my own personal taste, which applies, by virtue of being personal, only to me. Furthermore, it is a statement of fact. I don't like dubstep is a fact. We cannot debate this, any more than we can debate the fact that I perceive the sky to be blue and the grass to be green. All three are basic observations.
The second, on the other hand, is NOT a statement of preference, but instead is a moral statement, and notice the difference between the two. When I say something is morally wrong, this has nothing to do with whether or not I like that something. It means that I am making a statement about how people should behave. I am saying that people should not do that wrong thing.
This is the opposite of a statement of personal preference, in that it is specifically meant to apply to more people than just me. To say that people should not steal Highroller's car does not simply apply to Highroller, or to people who don't want to steal Highroller's car anyway. That makes no sense. It means that anyone who wants to steal Highroller's car, even if they believe they are justified, are in the wrong to do so.
Moreover, the moral statement, unlike the statement of personal preference, IS something that can be argued. You can't argue a statement that Highroller doesn't like dubstep, because that's a flat fact. But to say that listening to dubstep is wrong is saying that everyone is under a moral imperative not to listen to dubstep, and this statement not only can be justified, but requires justification in order for it to be valid.
In short, moral relativism flies entirely in the very role of ethics, which is the study of how people should behave, by demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of what ethical statements actually are saying.
Neither.
Think of it in terms of white supremacy in the U.S. back in the 19th century. The great majority of abolitionists still believed that blacks were inferior to whites, and that blacks and whites cannot coexist for various reasons. Even being progressive in that they wanted equality, they still couldn't bring themselves to comprehend actual equality. They were a product for their times.
Even if you disagree with your society, the general trend is that you still think within the context of that society's PoV and general framework.
Sure they can.
It is morally unacceptable to me that someone would be shot for wanting an education. Evidently it is morally acceptable for certain people in Pakistan to shoot someone for wanting an education.
X and -X only work in the context that you know the absolutes and the objective facts regarding said context. If one moral belief is objectively right, then anything that goes against it would be objectively wrong.
But if you do not know whether a moral belief is objectively right, then all you can do is argue with the knowledge that you currently have. In which case you can never make the argument that something is objectively better.
Here's a slightly less charged situation to work with besides the one you keep repeating.
Koreans like to eat dog meat. Americans do not. Americans think it's morally disgusting to eat animals that people keep as pets. Koreans do not.
Which is right.
If Taylor finds ice cream delicious and Highroller finds it unpalatable, which opinion wins? Taylor's opinion that ice cream is delicious, or Highroller's that ice cream is unpalatable? It cannot be both delicious and unpalatable, that's entirely illogical.
The point (other than ice cream is--in fact--delicious) is that in a moral relativistic system there is no objective right or wrong. Things can only be right or wrong within the perspective of an individual or society. X and ¬X simply don't exist outside of people's perspectives. Since X would not exist in the objective perspective, there is no contradiction there. Within a person's perspective something would be X or ¬X, but not both. Like ice cream would be delicious or unpalatable, but not both.
In moral relativistic system "right" and "wrong" exist only as subjective opinions, much like taste.
Your errors are apparent, however:
1. Your argument hinges entirely on a widespread societal paradigm, ignoring the fact that societies are composed of numerous different viewpoints (for instance our society both condones and opposes Creationism, condones and opposes abortion, condones and opposes military spending, condones and opposes Obamacare). Therefore, your argument fails, because one cannot say that there is a unified cultural opinion.
2. People are as much defined by how they disagree with others as they are by how much they agree with them.
"Certain people" does not constitute a culture, thereby making the appeal to cultural differences an empty one.
Furthermore, are you arguing that the majority is always right automatically?
Of course you can, based on the factual claims and logical basis of the arguments.
Every single statement you made above is entirely unfounded.
First of all, the statement "Americans think it's morally disgusting to eat animals that people keep as pets" is clearly unfounded given the fact that many animals people keep as pets are livestock animals.
Second, both statements made about Koreans regarding the consumption of dog meat are entirely unfounded. This is actually a controversial issue in Korea. Only a minority of Koreans report actually eating dogs, and there is a vocal movement against the eating of dogs. In addition, there is a widespread belief that the eating of dogs is both anachronistic to modern day Korea, and a harmful stereotype against Koreans. As it stands legally, dogs are classified as pets and not livestock (although the primary breed consumed is a landrace dog that is different from the breeds commonly kept as pets), but the slaughter and consumption of them is not illegal.
Here we see the problems of cultural relativism. There is no unified stance in Korea one way or another, as this is a contested issue.
Again, this is an incorrect analogy. Taylor finds ice cream delicious and Highroller finds it unpalatable are entirely reconcilable, as both statements can be taken as being correct. It is entirely possible to reconcile Taylor personally finding ice cream delicious and Highroller personally finding ice cream unpalatable.
However, the statements "No one should steal Highroller's car" and "It's ok to steal Highroller's car" cannot be reconciled. They cannot both be taken as true.
You are trying to conflate matters of personal preference with ethical statements. You cannot do this, as they are saying two entirely different things.
Saying "I like ice cream" is a statement of fact, indicating a personal preference. It applies only to the individual saying it, and cannot be contested. Nor does it imply that liking ice cream is in any way superior to another person who does not like ice cream. It's just a matter of personal preference.
On the other hand, saying "to steal a car is wrong" is not a statement of personal preference. It is a statement indicating how people should behave, the operative word being "people." This is a moral imperative extending to more than just the individual making the statement. Furthermore, this statement can be argued, as it's not simply a fact, but an argument, and therefore requires justification.
Honestly, Taylor, I already wrote all of this.
Again, this is a misunderstanding of what right and wrong mean. Moral statements must apply to more than just any individual person subjectively, or else they are completely meaningless. And if the latter, this therefore indicates that moral relativism is completely useless, as it provides nothing useful to ethics, which is the study of how people should act.
Then they do not exist, by definition of what moral statements are. As demonstrated, moral relativism and ethics are entirely at odds, and therefore moral relativism is entirely useless as an ethical philosophy.
EDIT: You even said as much in your own post.
Again, any framework that tries to say that moral statements and statements of personal preference are synonymous has already failed, because they are not the same type of statement by very definition. The latter is something that only applies to one person, the former is a statement of how people should behave.
Which is why it's bullcrap.
The point of moral relativism is that--according to it--objective moral statements ARE meaningless. That's the whole premise of the philosophy: That they DON'T apply to more than an individual or society of individuals.
"Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it." [1]
All you're doing at this point, Highroller, is begging the question. You are presuposing that there is an objective "right" or "wrong," but--since that's what we're debating--you can't do that. You have to PROVE it.
However, I do agree we are talking in circles at this point. If I can't make you see what you're doing, I can't make you see what you're doing. I don't feel like going round an' round. State your closing arguments to me. I'll not respond so you can have the last word.
I thought your point was that "atheism wouldn't be possible if there were only ritualized religions."
Now, if you meant that atheism doesn't make one feel as good as an eternity in the loving embrace of Jesus (without chucking bunnies off overpasses), yeah, that's probably a good explanation for why lots of people do convert/were converted.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I, for one, sincerely hope not! Ex–muslim here :). Born and brought up in the religion. True believer, etc. Officially apostatised in 2008.
So, when you say it will be "rejected" by God, does that mean God always has the choice whether to accept or reject a blood sacrifice? Could he, if he wanted to, accept a rabbit you chucked off an overpass, but just chooses not to?
...I guess the fetus would have to accept Christ first?
To clarify: the same would be applicable to the death penalty? ie executing criminals is a form of idolatry
And yet, you go on to later say that abortions, which are not offered up to any deity, are a sacrifice?
Unsurprising, you've run away from every other Scriptural debate with me.
Also, EVERYONE picks and chooses what they will accept and what they will reject out of the Bible. The Bible was never composed as a single unified work, and contradicts itself constantly. The problem is there are those so locked into what they want the Bible to say that they are unwilling see the books of the Bible for what they actually say. They come into the Bible expecting it to be the infallible Word of God and refuse to actually analyze the books for what they really are.
He did, actually. Remember that whole part about how the Law doesn't save but Jesus does? Pretty key point in Galatians.
No, because they're not offering it up to a deity, Moloch or any other. Everything here is just bullcrap.