For quite some days now, a brawling debate has raged across several UD threads on moral principles, truth and self-evidence. It is worth the while to again headline some of the exchange for record.
First, an exchange or two on fairness and subjectivity vs objectivity. And yes, this is a second-order clipping — a lot tends to get buried in comment exchanges:
>>Let us observe an exchange above:
[JS:] My comment presupposes a fair society and claims that they, as a fair society, would base their policies on moral values.
[Trib:] What determines a “fair society”?
Notice, how we almost automatically assume moral government in our argument?
This reflects how persuasion hinges on duties to truth, sound reasoning, fairness etc.
And that goes beyond mere subjective perception.
Speaking of, let us clip again:
[JS, 347:] And where have I said that good and evil don’t exist in the subjective morality realm? I realize that some say that right and wrong, good and evil, don’t exist. But when they say this they are referring to them not existing in the objective sense. There is no prohibition of them in the subjective sense.
[KF, 349:] good and evil existing “in the subjective morality realm” comes across as a synonym for, imagination, with shadings of delusion.
[Trib, 352:] You really have to work on your understanding of the definitions of words and the implications of how you use them. Good and evil would exist in the “subjective morality realm” only in the opinion of the subject and only the subject would be bound by it. Objective morality applies to all and binds all.
Rom 13:8 [b]Owe nothing to anyone except to [c]love and seek the best for one another; for he who [unselfishly] loves his neighbor has fulfilled the [essence of the] law [relating to one’s fellowman]. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,” and any other commandment are summed up in this statement: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor [it never hurts anyone]. Therefore [unselfish] love is the fulfillment of the Law. [AMP]
So, the core teaching is clear enough. The parable of the Good Samaritan — extremely well known — clinches it; the hereditary enemy and heretic was the true neighbour. Neighbours build peace, not murder, theft, deceit or lustful using of neighbour’s body.
Likewise, let us note the same Apostle in Athens:
Ac 17: 24 The God who created the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He [e]served by human hands, as though He needed anything, because it is He who gives to all [people] life and breath and all things. 26 And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands and territories. 27 This was so that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grasp for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. 28 For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being], as even some of [f]your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ [AMP]
So, neighbourliness should extend across a global common brotherhood.
It doesn’t.
IS is not OUGHT.
One form of a famous gap.
A clue, indeed a vital though somewhat obvious point.
(BTW, for someone who just self-referentially went up on a pedestal, standing up for the significance of the OUGHT vs the IS is not instantly a self-indictment. Lev 19:13 – 18 very explicitly teaches that part of neighbourliness is reasoning frankly to move from a substandard is towards the ought. [Let’s pause and insert, as this is an obviously pivotal reference on what the Judaeo-Christian tradition actually teaches from its Hebraic roots on:
Lev 19:13 ‘You shall not oppress or exploit your neighbor, nor rob him. You shall not withhold the wages of a hired man overnight until morning. 14 You shall not curse a deaf man nor put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God [with profound reverence]; I am the Lord.15 ‘You shall not do injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor show a preference for the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. 16 You shall not go around as a gossip among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor [with slander or false testimony]; I am the Lord.
17 ‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you may most certainly rebuke your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take revenge nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor (acquaintance, associate, companion) as yourself; I am the Lord. [AMP]]
In other words, we are up against one of the key failings of subjectivism and relativism: locking out reform and reformers by targetting, isolating and scapegoating them. Note a current lawsuit at Google where this has been tolerated through internal social media and allegedly backed by HR with senior leadership falling into enabling behaviour. SB’s point is serious and highly relevant.)
Clearly, we are morally governed, even in argument and reasoning.
Inescapably so.
And the IS-OUGHT gap can become a chasm. One through which holocausts can be and are driven. Including, the in-progress one mounting up at a million more victims per week from our living posterity in the womb on a total from 40+ years of 800+ millions. When we understand how we are implicated and how corrupt and blood-guilt ridden our own institutions, professions, power elites and general populace have become, then we will be better able to answer to past cases.
Until then, our rhetoric is suspect, for cause. And, the fashionable views we support will also very likely be utterly tainted.
Back to the gap.
How can it be bridged?
(Surely, we can appreciate why it needs to be bridged, starting with in our own hearts.)
First, we have to face it, recognising that our IS is nowhere near where we OUGHT to be, in thought, word, deed, culture, civilisation.
Guilty, guilty, guilty.
Precisely the indictment the White Rose martyrs made against Germany at large.
But, we are blood-guilt riddled, warped and corrupt. How can we ever learn to think straight about what OUGHT to be?
We desperately need knowable, warranted, credible MORAL truth. Something that accurately describes what OUGHT to be and with enough credibility that when it points to the gap between that OUGHT and our sorry IS, it breaks us to listen, heed, turn, seek renewal and reformation.
A plumbline
Crooked yardsticks posing as standards of straightness, accuracy and uprightness cannot do this. We need plumb-line, self-evident, naturally and utterly credibly straight MORAL truths.
Not, crooked yardstick values, feelings, impulses, intuitions, consensuses, theories or grand but utterly flawed narratives of progress etc. Genuinely, naturally straight and upright plumb-lines.
One of these was already alluded to: we are inescapably under moral government in our conscious inner life, through the laws of duty to truth, sound reasoning, fairness etc that our consciences keep reminding us of. Indeed, much of the above, seeking to undermine confidence in the truth of that inner testimony, relies for persuasive effect on the force of that voice.
OUGHT, is inescapable, though we may warp it out of its true course.
Likewise, once we have something that pervasive, if it is written off as delusional, the rot spreads throughout our inner life of mindedness. In particular, reason is now twisted into clever deceit and manipulation, unfettered by duty to the right.
So, we must see this absurdity and name it for what it is, a sign of gross error.
A fresh start is: we are self-evidently under moral government, witnessed to by conscience. And thus, we face, whence that law, and why does it have force.
A glance at the yardstick case I have repeatedly raised will show it does not come from the might, eloquence or voice of the individual or the community. The monster bound and gagged the innocent child to have his perverse way, but that only underscored how demonic what was being done was. He proceeded to sexually violate and murder then conceal and make a getaway. Thirty-odd years later, he is likely some seemingly respectable greying man who we would never dream is such a monster.
None of this changes the fact of self-evident evil that points to the dignity and rights thus respect owed to even the weakest, least articulate among us. Indeed, we who have strength, voice and eloquence are duty-bound to stand up on their behalf. Something that has been notably missing for many days, in the part of too many.
But that just pushes the matter back further.
Where does this government come from, how can it be true, how can it be warranted as credibly true?
Hume’s guillotine points to one place: the world-root.
Where, we need a world-root sufficient to ground not only the cosmos or biological life but a new phenomenon: the inescapably spiritual life of certain morally governed creatures. Us.
Utter non-being cannot do. For, were there ever utter nothing, such has no causal powers and that would forever obtain. There would be no world. A world is, so something always was, the world-root.
Nor can the chain of successive causation be extended back into a circle at some point. That would imply that the non existent creates itself. Fail again. Nor is infinite stepwise causal succession credible, not least as such cannot bridge endlessness. Never mind arguments that boil down to implying that the endless span has always already been bridged.
We need a finitely remote world root of adequate capacity to bridge and fuse IS to OUGHT.
I have often pointed to the only serious candidate after centuries of debates. A point underscored by how over many days, in many threads, no serious alternative is forthcoming: ___. So, we see: the inherently good creator God and world-root, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. A nature that has sometimes been described in terms of being in the image of God, ensouled with a value exceeding the resources of a planet.
The God of ethical theism would be the unique world-root, reality and its aspects are not independent of him. Goodness is not an arbitrary decree, it reflects the purest character, the maximally great one, and it reflects him who is communicative reason himself, so it is materially intelligible. As necessary being he would be eternal, answering to “something always was.” Indeed, on the logic of being, a serious candidate necessary being (as opposed to say a material composite such as the flying spaghetti monster failed parody) will be either impossible or actual in any possible world, part of its core framework. And more.
The issue is, are we open to re-think?
Do we have a genuinely viable alternative, or are we merely clinging to crooked yardsticks and mocking plumb-line cases for failing to conform to our fashionable yardsticks?>>
Thirdly, let us ponder some of where this points for our civilisation:
>>We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles; for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people — that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions.
So also, it is not only possible to
(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also
(b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law.
For instance:
1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought.
(Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.)
3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding.
(That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.)
4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise.
5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do.
6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level.
(Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. If a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT — so that IS and OUGHT are inextricably fused at that level, it fails decisively.*)
7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more.
(We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare; usurping the sword of justice to impose a ruthless policy agenda in fundamental breach of that civil peace which must ever pivot on manifest justice. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.)
8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity.
9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd.
10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities.
(In Aristotle’s terms as cited by Hooker: “because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like .”)
Thus also,
11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.
(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting — again — nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation — or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)
12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil.
_________________
* F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.>>
Food for thought. Let us ponder our ways and where our civilisation is patently heading:
Of Lemmings, marches of folly and cliffs of self-falsifying absurdity . . .
vs.
Is it too late to turn back? END
Comments
RVB8, in what rhetorical world does an examination of "subjectivity vs objectivity of moral principles and the importance of self-evidently true moral principles" constitute an examination or exposition of natural sciences and schools of thought thereof? You have led a red herring off to a strawman caricature which you have soaked in ad hominems and set alight to try to distract, cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere for discussion. And, duly noted, you are implying that normies and sheeple and Eloi should heed principles you discard, to your advantage. KF kairosfocus
JS, the track record is above and it is not in your favour. Brazen re-writing of the record after the fact does not add to your credibility, which is already at a severe discount after the past 36 hours or so. The counsel that you need to take a time out to reflect and reform your ways is still obviously valid. KF kairosfocus
JS
Yes, I put Eichmann on the table. To point out the absurd logic of SB’s statement.
And I refuted that claim as well. Eichmann was not ignorant, so your reference was inappropriate. StephenB
JSmith
You have a remarkable ability to misrepresent what somebody says.
Why do you get so upset when I refute you by referring to your own words. The classy thing to do is to simply admit that you made a mistake and move on. Here is what you said:
KF’s denigration of the Jewish people to appease his attempt to save ***fertilized ova and undifferentiated masses of cells.***
and again,
So, again, please tell me how the ***“killing” of fertilized ova and undifferentiated masses of cells*** (with no brains) compares to this?
It is obvious that you were characterizing Jews and human and fetuses as subhuman because you referred to the latter as a "mass of undifferentiated cells" with no brains. You even put the word ***killing*** in quotes to indicate that the abortion didn't really rise to that level, implying that a mere something or other was simply being eliminated.
So, it was a simple matter of informing you (and our audience) that cells differentiate at 5 weeks and abortions start at 6 weeks, meaning that the aborted fetus is not, as you falsely claimed, "a mass of undifferentiated cells." A fetus at any stage of life is a living human being with human DNA, and any fetus that is aborted has lived long enough to experience cell differentiation. Those are the facts. In other words, I refuted you with the evidence.
But I guess that when you can’t support your views with supporting evidence, lying is the last resort.
Again, you seem to come apart whenever you are refuted by unassailable facts. StephenB
KF
JS, it is you who put Eichmann on the table and I responded to your: “By that logic, Eiichman should only have been charged with manslaughter for the holocaust because of his subjective ignorance.” KF
Yes, I put Eichmann on the table. To point out the absurd logic of SB’s statement. The massive scale of his crime does not change the logic. JSmith
SB
Even you thought that an aborted fetus was a blob of undifferentiated cells until I made the correction.
You have a remarkable ability to misrepresent what somebody says. OldAndrew already pointed this out to you. But I guess that when you can’t support your views with supporting evidence, lying is the last resort. JSmith
Oh goody,
abortion+kairos+religion+holocaust+interlocuters+murder+irrationality= ID science. rvb8
JS, it is you who put Eichmann on the table and I responded to your: "By that logic, Eiichman should only have been charged with manslaughter for the holocaust because of his subjective ignorance." KF kairosfocus
Dionisio,
@11 You have described the deteriorating conditions of mankind today.. I'm asking: who's fault is it?-Since we both seem to agree it's not God's.. J-Mac
JS:
If you are going to make a claim about the rights of the fetus then you must accept the legal consequences to someone who violates those rights, or be a hypocrite.
I accept those legal consequences. I also accept the fact that people who have committed first degree murder get off on lesser charges depending on the circumstance.
So yes, if abortions are illegal properly educated people should definitely be facing homicide charges for getting an abortion. And as ignorance isn't an excuse then they also get charged.
(One problem will be proving that women were pregnant in the first place. Are we going to have the police in every ob/gyn examination room?) ET
JSmith
By that logic, Eiichman should only have been charged with manslaughter for the holocaust because of his subjective ignorance.
He was not ignorant. Not by a long shot. Read below.
Ignorance of the law is no defence. If the premeditated killing a young child is first degree murder, and if a fetus has the same objective right to life as a young child, then a woman who has an abortion is guilty of first degree murder. In several states, the penalty is execution.
We are not talking about ignorance of the law. We are talking about ignorance about biological facts. Even if a woman and her mate knew that there were laws against abortion, they would not necessarily know that abortion is murder. Even you thought that an aborted fetus was a blob of undifferentiated cells until I made the correction. If you, with two graduate degrees, can make that mistake, then a young boy and girl who secure an abortion would likely be ignorant in the same way.
To commit murder is to choose to kill someone that is known to be a human being. If one doesn't know that a fetus is human, then first degree murder is not at issue. However, the abortionist and the social workers, who lie to young boys and girls seeking answers, should be charged with first degree murder. I would, however, charge the boy and girl with a lesser crime, as indicated. StephenB
KF
Eichmann was fully qualified to know he was a leading agent of mass-murder of fellow human beings.
That was not the point being discussed. SB was arguing that a woman who has an abortion isn’t as culpable because of her subjective ignorance of an “objective evil”. Eichmann was also subjectively ignorant of the “objective evil.”
Only earlier today you yourself spoke of undifferentiated masses of cells, at least until SB corrected your wk 5 vs 6 embryology.
If you are going to accept someone else’ s criticism of my knowledge of embryology, it would be wise to read the context under which the criticized comment was made. JSmith
JS, Eichmann was fully qualified to know he was a leading agent of mass-murder of fellow human beings. A deadened, hardened conscience is no excuse for doing wrong, great wrong. Only earlier today you yourself spoke of undifferentiated masses of cells, at least until SB corrected your wk 5 vs 6 embryology. No prizes for guessing why the dominant narrative is inaccurate. KF kairosfocus
Their culpability is diminished because of their subjective ignorance of an objectively evil crime.
By that logic, Eiichman should only have been charged with manslaughter for the holocaust because of his subjective ignorance.
Ignorance of the law is no defence. If the premeditated killing a young child is first degree murder, and if a fetus has the same objective right to life as a young child, then a woman who has an abortion is guilty of first degree murder. In several states, the penalty is execution.
If you are going to make a claim about the rights of the fetus then you must accept the legal consequences to someone who violates those rights, or be a hypocrite. JSmith
SB, spot on, JS inadvertently showed the effect of the way our unborn posterity in the womb has been dehumanised. An issue that should be VERRRRRY familiar and should set off a few dozen warning flags. KF
PS: Speaking of, the 7.6 mag at 10 km depth off Honduras last night led to tsunami warnings but those fizzled. kairosfocus
Then feel free to advocate for the charging of women who have abortions with murder.”
I would settle for charging the mother and the father with manslaughter and sentence them both to community service in the form of attending educational seminars on the biological facts about life. Their culpability is diminished because of their subjective ignorance of an objectively evil crime. They have been mislead by those who have told them that an unborn fetus about to be aborted is, as you have claimed, just a blob of "undifferentiated cells." Unfortunately, it is not against the law to fill young skulls full of mush with the wrong information. StephenB
Dionisio
It’s evident you don’t understand what I wrote.
I think that perhaps God is using you and your party comrades to motivate some of us to go back and read carefully His special revelation, so that we can understand it better, and thus know Him better, know ourselves better and always be ready to present the reason for the faith we have.
God himself decides who understands what and how much at any given time, out of His sovereign will.
I praise Him only, using a Hebrew expression (in English):
Hallelujah!
If I am making you a better Christian, good on yah mate. JSmith
J-Mac @56,
Huh? Dionisio
JSmith,
It's evident you don't understand what I wrote.
I think that perhaps God is using you and your party comrades to motivate some of us to go back and read carefully His special revelation, so that we can understand it better, and thus know Him better, know ourselves better and always be ready to present the reason for the faith we have.
God himself decides who understands what and how much at any given time, out of His sovereign will.
I praise Him only, using a Hebrew expression (in English):
Hallelujah! Dionisio
"Then feel free to advocate for the charging of women who have abortions with murder."
This will definitely work especially in the many churches where the great majority of religious women reserve themselves the right to aboard whenever needed...
Then all they need to do is go to confession to have their "records cleared" by the many prayers as the fine for their sin...
If the churches don't comply, they will lose their members who demand them to adjust to what they want to hear and do, and not the other way around... J-Mac
JSmith writes at 29, “Ah, the abortion holocaust. KF’s denigration of the Jewish people to appease his attempt to save fertilized ova and undifferentiated masses of cells.”
Reviewing the thread it strikes me that the A-S bomb is the new F-bomb. Before Hollywood popularized profanity as Cool, profanity served as a signal for civilized people to discreetly find another table or a different cafe. Today, when progressives - for example - are highly and openly anti-Semitic, anti-Semitism seems to mainly be a term of abuse that can be applied to any non-postmodern person. That is, it would be bad for kairosfocus to be anti-Semitic but not for Erdogan because, well, Muslim is the new gay*, just like gay was the new black.
I am deeply sorry if JS lost previous-generation relatives in the Holocaust. But that doesn't make all other holocausts minimal.** Dismembering one’s own children alive (abortion) seems, to many of us, to vitiate moral advice that a human being might offer.
* That, by the way, is why gay groups were grovelling in the dust and swearing that they weren't "Islamophobic" after the Orlando massacre. Not being gay or politically correct, maybe I (O’Leary for News) just see the world differently. I would have said, "I am fully prepared to be Islamophobic after stuff like this and to make my vote on the subject count. Now, Muslims, your job is to convince me that I am mistaken. I'm listening, but I am not the one who needs to accommodate here."
**I can't claim to have ancestors who were in either holocaust discussed, though there were several historical efforts to trim the Irish, amounting to hundreds of thousands of lives. The one that interests me most was the Malthus-inspired Potato Famine, which brought my ancestors to Canada (and Irish people generally to any part of the world where they could find refuge). Now that the Irish are trimming themselves, I have much less sympathy but retain an interest. News
JS:
Then feel free to advocate for the charging of women who have abortions with murder.
Homicide
If you would stand between a killer and a young child to save his/her life, to not do the same at an abortion clinic is hypocritical.
When the law is rightfully changed I will definitely do that.
Unless, of course, you really don’t perceive the killing of a fetus to be on a par with the killing of a young child.
I do however there are many morons who say otherwise and actually changed the definition of life to suit their needs. I would have to kill each and every one of them as they are all culpable.
Living in a world dominated by ignorance all I can do is hope for a change to a civilization based on logic, rationality and evidence-based reasoning. ET
Dionisio,
"J-Mac @10:
The greatest crime in history was committed by the most religious people.
The human spiritual core is irremediably sick. There’s no natural remedy for that fatal malady.
Forget religion. It doesn’t help.
We’re all spiritually dead.
Christ doesn’t make bad people good.
He makes spiritually dead people live.
Everything else is tabloid gossiping of the worse kind, specially when it’s sugarcoated with religion.
Who's fault is it?
Where did it go wrong? J-Mac
ET
Abortion is homicide.
Then feel free to advocate for the charging of women who have abortions with murder. Or, better yet, get between the doctors and the woman and use force if necessary to prevent the abortion. I am sure that you know where the clinics are. If not, you can find them on the internet.
If you would stand between a killer and a young child to save his/her life, to not do the same at an abortion clinic is hypocritical. Unless, of course, you really don't perceive the killing of a fetus to be on a par with the killing of a young child. JSmith
rvb8,
Right now in 2018 religion, in the form of the Russian Orthodox Church is again experiencing a reformation of sorts, in cahoots with Putin
Poland is a perfect example of where this kind of reformation is going to lead.
When communists lost power in Poland in late 1980, the catholic church took credit for it and the Polish Pope became a god. Many Poles replaced pictures of Jesus on their walls with the pictures of JPII.
The euphoria spread... 95% plus catholic country became the future paradise... But as history has shown many times over, the paradox followed... the minorities were isolated and ignored...
Today, less then 40% of population is identified as catholic and less than 25% goes to church regularly...
The church has decided to troubleshoot it and use its influence to ban Sunday shopping in order to improve the church attendance. Bu this has already backfired as even many of the bible-bashing-grannies, called in polish mohairs, see through the hypocrisy of the church...
So, will the Russian reformation last very long? No... and there is and will be a price to pay for it...
The majority of Russians will eventually see the hypocrisy of the church and their support for Putin in exchange for radicalization of Russia. The final effect could be another revolution and the return to the communist-like-state where religion is suppressed and "free thought" is enforced...
Russia has been there many times within the last 100 years or so...The history has a way of repeating itself...
Mankind has not learned anything...we never do... J-Mac
JS:
And everybody who has ever lived will go through the stage of death. And your point is?
Abortion is homicide ET
D at 47, I'm not sure I understand the point that you are making at 45.
I see terms like Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. as descriptions that people apply to themselves. Whether or not any individual is accurately following the will of their respective gods is purely a subjective assessment. Nobody knows if they are "good" Christians, or Jews or Muslims.
I am of Jewish heritage but I wouldn't call myself Jewish. I certainly am not observant in any way. In spite of this, as a teen I caddied at a golf course that I would not have been able to play on. This minor persecution was the dying embers of a prejudice that owed its origins (or at least a large part of it) to Christian society based on what were held to be objective truths. In fact, there was a period in European history when Jews fled to Muslim countries to avoid persecution in the Christian ones. It is this history that largely sowed the seeds of the holocaust.
The German people of the time, predominantly Christian, sat back and watched what was happening to the Jews. There were certainly some that took action to hinder these actions by hiding people and seeking them out of Europe. But the holocaust could not have happened without the tacit approval of the German people of the time. And, sadly, North America was not without blame in the situation. Even though the governments of the day had knowledge of what was happening to the Jews, boatloads were turned away and forced to return to Europe.
And what is even more sad, if most of us had grown up in Germany at the time, and assuming that we were not Jewish, we would more than likely have sat back and done nothing as well.
The same could be happening today with the abortion and other important issues. However, I think morality cannot be legislated comprehensible, because it’s an individual issue. Every one of us must be wisely responsible and test* everything, holding only what is good. But in order to know what is good, we need wisdom, hence we need to know where to get it from. The true source of wisdom is our own Creator. That’s all.
Then you disagree with KF. He does not want us to test everything. The true source of wisdom may come from God, but the difficulty is to discern what those "truths" are. And the only way to do that is to ensure that we test all of what we are told are moral truths through rational, logical, evidence based examinations. We will still get things "wrong", but it is less dangerous that blindly accepting when someone tells us that something is an objective truth. JSmith
JS
--When I mentioned that your ancestors and mine shared the same persecutor (White Christians of European descent), I was not talking about the Nazi holocaust per se, although white Christians on both sides of the pond, including the Pope of the day, were certainly complicit in it.--
Again not true. Where do you get this garbage from? tribune7
@47 addendum
Please, you may want to read carefully comments @2, @3, @8, @11, @14, @29 at your own convenience. Thanks. Dionisio
@45 error correction:
Seversky @27: Dionisio
Seversky @22,
Huh? Dionisio
JSmith @42:
Please, read carefully comment @45 at your convenience. Thanks.
BTW, many of my former classmates were Jewish by nationality within the Soviet Union, who were remarkable students, but were not allowed -in a subtle way- admission to higher level universities in Moscow or Leningrad (St. Petersburg), even though they were better qualified than other students who were admitted there. One of my best friends now graduated the top of my whole class. He's Russian Jewish. Some of those former classmates live in Israel now. One of my children's best friend is Jewish too. We are close friends with that family and were at their child's weeding.
Those in the 1930s Germany who called themselves Christians and did not realized how much the Nazi ideas were grounded on evil philosophy, when that party took the power, could have seen a big red flag warning that things were not right when they witnessed the abominable Kristallnacht. Unfortunately many missed to interpret that infamous event wisely, and various nations in that part of the world -specially the Jewish nation- were submitted to a horrendous existence and physical death.
Perhaps had I been there, I would have missed understanding what was going on too. For a substantial portion of my earthly existence I was a strong atheist, educated in the capital of the Soviet empire, spiritually lost and blind. Amazing grace that saved a wretch like me.
However, seeing KF's strong convictions, I think he would have disapproved that evil philosophy from the moment it was made public, right there and right away.
The same could be happening today with the abortion and other important issues. However, I think morality cannot be legislated comprehensible, because it's an individual issue. Every one of us must be wisely responsible and test* everything, holding only what is good. But in order to know what is good, we need wisdom, hence we need to know where to get it from. The true source of wisdom is our own Creator. That's all.
Everything else is as worth as tabloid gossip (or even less).
Have a good day. Dionisio
ET Wow, what a tarded attempt at minimalizing human life. Look every person who has ever lived had to go through that stage of life. Without that stage there wouldn’t have been a holocaust nor slavery.
And everybody who has ever lived will go through the stage of death. And your point is? JSmith
Seversky @26:
kairosfocus @ 12
Who are in leadership of key institutions of influence, education, information and decision-making?
If the religious demographics of the US Congress are anything to go by, the overwhelming majority of members belong to the Abrahamic faiths, mostly Christian. There has been only one admitted atheist in the whole history of Congress.
This implies that throughout the history of the US it is Christians who have their hands on the levers of political power. So, it is with them that responsibility for the alleged failings of the nation – including the so-called abortion “holocaust” – rests.
Perhaps that's an interesting observation that should be addressed appropriately.
Unfortunately, the term "Christian" is probably one of the least understood words in the whole vocabulary of any language.
Sadly, even many of us, who publicly call ourselves 'Christians', may lack complete and accurate understanding of what that term really means. Perhaps I'm included in that numerous group too.
I might try and find some time to write about this separately later, though I'm not literally qualified to do it, hence first will have to read carefully what the Christian Scriptures say about this. In any case, anybody can read the Christian Scriptures alone or in group, but God decides in every individual case what and how much is understood at a given moment, according the purpose of His absolutely sovereign will. Note that our free will is very far from being sovereign.
Had we remained in Eden, none of this would have been an issue at all. Too late now. Dionisio
JS:
So, again, please tell me how the “killing” of fertilized ova and undifferentiated masses of cells with no brains compares to this?
Wow, what a tarded attempt at minimalizing human life. Look every person who has ever lived had to go through that stage of life. Without that stage there wouldn't have been a holocaust nor slavery.
Why don't we just redefine life as carbon-based bags of water? ET
Bob O'H:
I think people on both sides of the abortion agenda are well entrenched, in particular about the fundamental issues (e.g. when is a foetus considered alive).
Seeing that human life is a process with EVERY stage being very important, the fetus can only be considered non-living by those who choose to redefine what life is. And if we ignore abortion when discussing morality we might as well exclude murder, rape and thievery as well ET
KF
THREAD OWNER: JS, You here show the depth of your problem. ...
When I mentioned that your ancestors and mine shared the same persecutor (White Christians of European descent), I was not talking about the Nazi holocaust per se, although white Christians on both sides of the pond, including the Pope of the day, were certainly complicit in it. I was referring to the persecution that went on for centuries. In the Jews case, this led to the holocaust. In the case of Africans, this led to institutional slavery. These are easily researched facts. Pretending that they aren't is just wearing rose colored glasses and blinders. JSmith
BO'H: On the subject of establishing that there are self-evident truths in general and then moral SET's I did not go to this issue. However as it seems to be a lurking octopus, it cannot be evaded. And indeed in a few generations, silence on this matter is going to look a lot like guilt by silence. How do I know this? Those who avoided the slavery question, and those who were silent in the face of the Nazi holocaust. KF kairosfocus
kf -
I suspect strongly that the taint from distorted thinking required to sustain the abortion agenda is a key factor in blocking serious discussion
Which is precisely why I think you should avoid it if you want a serious discussion! I think people on both sides of the abortion agenda are well entrenched, in particular about the fundamental issues (e.g. when is a foetus considered alive). Bob O'H
BO'H: Abortion is the central moral issue of our time, having to do with the value of innocent life and the recognition of humans as humans worthy of protection. As, in an earlier time, slavery was. KF
PS: BTW, the specific cases I have put on the table as self-evident do not include abortion, but I suspect strongly that the taint from distorted thinking required to sustain the abortion agenda is a key factor in blocking serious discussion. kairosfocus
Here's a suggestion for those who want to discuss whether morals are objective or subjective - set abortion aside. It's clear that people have strong views, and it's a distraction. I'm sure that their people on both sides of the debate could argue that their position is moral and objective, or moral and subjective. So I don't think it clarifies anything, other than they everyone has ancestors who were persecuted. Bob O'H
JSmith to Kairosfocus
I apologize for my insensitivity. How many of your relatives died in Nazi concentration camps? I have a couple grandparents and numerous aunts, uncles, great aunts and great uncles who did. So, again, please tell me how the “killing” of fertilized ova and undifferentiated masses of cells with no brains compares to this?
How disingenuous can you get? Let’s begin with a few facts. According to the science, fetal cells differentiate at 5 weeks; according to the statistics, women don’t get abortions until they are 6 weeks pregnant. So your assumption that an abortion is the killing of “undifferentiated masses of cells” is misguided. But who cares about fact when the objective is to rationalize the killing of unborn children, right?
Now, let’s get right down to it. In truth, you have the same Nazi mentality that you claim to find distasteful. Just as the Nazi’s didn’t scruple to kill Jews on the grounds that they were subhuman, you don’t scruple to kill unborn children on the grounds that they are subhuman.
It’s easy to imply that you would have stepped up to help prevent the Jewish Holocaust when you don’t have to back it up by assuming any political risks or taking any constructive actions. Anyone can say that they “would” have been compassionate if they had been in that situation.
The real test is what you do now. If you really had any compassion, you would assume the political risks and take the constructive actions to help prevent the Holocaust of unborn children. As it is, your fake compassion is really nothing more than a cheap exercise in political correctness. StephenB
KF
JS, while I accept your apology, I must remind you that I derive from a nation and region who in the main come from survivors of a holocaust of genocidal scope acknowledged in recent years as a crime against humanity: the slave trade.
Are you seriously measuring holocaust [SNIP, language] here? Are you even aware that your ancestors and mine share the same persecutors? Christians of European descent.
[THREAD OWNER: JS, You here show the depth of your problem. Please, take some time out to reflect on your behaviour in this thread and elsewhere. Perhaps, too, it has not registered that in my homeland, the gospel and Christian faith as well as church leaders -- some of them martyrs -- served as a liberating force. One of those martyrs was a leading member of my family, whose name now stands above the door of my homeland's House of Parliament, a name which I personally hold through family naming tradition. Where, too, if anything is historically certain, it is that those men who carried out the chattel slavery trade and the Nazi holocaust were not acting in accord with the core teachings and general principles of gospel ethics. Indeed, I think someone recently reminded us here at UD that the Christian Church was in fact on Herr Schicklegruber's target list. In which context it is worth noting as a further point of responsible balance, that in the land at ground zero of the holocaust, Poland, there were five million victims, half of the holocaust of Jews, and the other two million being Christians. Russia of course suffered 20 - 30 million deaths, only about 5 million of which were on the battlefield and it has been discovered that there was a plan to starve the Ukrainian people as a whole to death. Heine, who (a full century in advance) warned against the trends of anti-Christian thought and ideology that would ultimately end in such a horror, was in fact a Christian of Jewish ethnicity. The story is far more subtle and complex than you have suggested. Solzhenitsyn rightly said that the line between good and evil passes, not between classes, races and nations but right through the individual human heart. That is why it is vital for us to restore sound moral government starting with plumb-line self evident moral truths and then going on to objective principles of sound moral thought that would inter alia stop the ongoing holocaust of posterity in the womb. The issue which has stirred you to now repeated over-wrought and ill-advised comment. Please, take time out and reconsider. GEM of TKI.] JSmith
JS, while I accept your apology, I must remind you that I derive from a nation and region who in the main come from survivors of a holocaust of genocidal scope acknowledged in recent years as a crime against humanity: the slave trade. Let me add, this implies an ethnic group well acquainted with a long and as yet unfinished history of denigration, disrespect, dehumanisation and even demonisation based on racial-ethnic identity and physical characteristics. I suggest to you that you need to moderate your onward remarks. KF
PS: Your characterisation of our living posterity in the womb also needs serious adjustment, given that by the time a woman is aware of new life within her, the unborn child is already well on the way to forming a fully developed body. And that is before we discuss at what point the spirit is united with the flesh. Where, note also that about half the time, the new life growing in utero is not even of the same sex as his mother. kairosfocus
Dionisio, prezactly. KF kairosfocus
KF
First, I happen to come from a family where we have many “fathers” and “mothers.” One of these mothers happens to be Jewish.
I apologize for my insensitivity. How many of your relatives died in Nazi concentration camps? I have a couple grandparents and numerous aunts, uncles, great aunts and great uncles who did. So, again, please tell me how the “killing” of fertilized ova and undifferentiated masses of cells with no brains compares to this? JSmith
JS, you have gone beyond the pale, in a thinly veiled accusation of antisemitism multiplied by a denigration and dehumanisation of living posterity in the womb. A thought or two in reply. First, I happen to come from a family where we have many "fathers" and "mothers." One of these mothers happens to be Jewish. If you had bothered to look at my public track record, you would have found this conference paper, which expresses the very opposite of antisemitism. I also happen to be a descendant of survivors of a holocaust of genocidal character sustained for 200+ years, known as the slave trade. I also come from a nation whose longest resident distinct ethnic group happens to be Jewish, and Jewish descent is diffused far and wide in that nation; our instinctive response to Judaism and Jews is respect, indeed it is no surprise to see that the closest house of worship to the national parliament is The United Congregation of Israelites. Where also, my home congregation is in a building that started life as a Synagogue, right down to having a "Jew Plum" tree next to the caretaker's cottage which was still alive in my childhood -- so, awareness and appreciation of Hebraic heritage is something that came to me from childhood; indeed the first political opinion I absorbed, literally at mother's knee, was opposition to Nazism. Further to this, the list of acknowledged holocausts of C20 exceeds 100 millions, at the hands of several totalitarian regimes; while holocaust does derive from the genocide of Hitler, it has a far wider legitimate application and if that does not extend to the willful slaughter of 800+ millions of our living posterity in the womb, it has lost its meaning. I think you owe this blog an apology at this time, and seriously need to reconsider your obvious chip- on- the- shoulder mentality. KF kairosfocus
PPS: Let's take a clue or two from Plato's observations in The Laws, Bk X, post the collapse of Athens:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .
[Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
kairosfocus
Ah, the abortion holocaust. KF’s denigration of the Jewish people to appease his attempt to save fertilized ova and undifferentiated masses of cells. JSmith
critical rationalist @18:
FYI:
The Christian scriptures -that so many people despise- advices to test everything and hold what is good.
That's against blindly following what others say without questioning it.
A substantial proportion of the German nation -including many who claimed to be Christians- blindly followed their Nazi leaders' evil philosophy without questioning their main precepts and sadly were led to a bloody abyss.
But there were few shiny exceptions, like the brave young lady Sophie Scholl, a student at the university of Munich, who faced the evil regime with courage until they took her life under a guillotine in archaic French revolution style.
Today some public places in Germany are named in her memory.
True Christians don't follow Stalin, Hitler, Mao, or any human being. They follow the One who doesn't make bad people good, but makes spiritually dead people live forever in His glorious presence.
Everything else is tabloid gossiping or Disney-style fairytale.
It's up to each of us to chose the way. Dionisio
F/N: On leading a civilisational collapse -- and yes a stubborn march of proverbial lemming-like folly over a cliff is an in-short summary of how civilisations die (with the collapse of Athens in the Peloponnesian war the lead example -- and many others follow up to Nazism and Communism etc in living memory).
It is almost amusing -- but then utterly sad -- to see the immediate reaction of radical secularists to look for religious leadership as prototypical exemplars of domineering and misleading a civilisation to ruin. When, there are living memory exemplars of radically anticlerical movements band atheistical ones leading collapses and doing so in the context of secret police states. The current global holocaust of living posterity in the womb (the worst in history) also speaks, but too many are in lock-step march on the path of alleged progress.
H'mm, who are the we referred to by Lewontin, and what is the implication of the following from Provine?
Lewontin:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . ] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
Provine:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . .
The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]
Perhaps, it is time for sober reconsideration of our own ways and where we are headed today. Especially as cultural relativism in an era of ruthless agit-prop and lawfare boils down to the hidden rule of the elite, soft nihilist manipulators.
We would be well advised to turn back before the cracked and crumbling cliff's edge underfoot gives way.
KF
PS: Oh, it's the Christians who are responsible for the Abortion holocaust would be ludicrous, if it were not such a blatant diversion. Likewise scare-mongering about return to the 1300's or the alleged Wedge conspiracy serve only as distractors from what is patently before us in the OP. Who are leading us into radical secularism and relativism? Who are sustaining it in the teeth of its patent absurdities? kairosfocus
kairosfocus @ 12
Who are in leadership of key institutions of influence, education, information and decision-making?
If the religious demographics of the US Congress are anything to go by, the overwhelming majority of members belong to the Abrahamic faiths, mostly Christian. There has been only one admitted atheist in the whole history of Congress.
This implies that throughout the history of the US it is Christians who have their hands on the levers of political power. So, it is with them that responsibility for the alleged failings of the nation - including the so-called abortion "holocaust" - rests. Seversky
Interesting point J-Mac.
Right now in 2018 religion, in the form of the Russian Orthodox Church is again experiencing a reformation of sorts, in cahoots with Putin.
Narendra Modi, the PM of India, is fond of whipping up Hindu angst to further himself; Religion and the State, the awful Catholic/Christian brew.
Recip Tyyip Erdogen, the egregious, 'leader' of Turkey is fond of Islamic rule, and has just banned evolution from lower education; is 'Higher' education next? Why not? It is after all basically an, 'Inquisition'.
The leaders of many tin pot African despotisims use religion freely to subjucate the masses for one very good reason:
Religion, fear, alchemy, snake oil salesmen, God(of various flavours), and power, go hand in glove!
Science and art, ignore these forces of state and religion. Thus state and religion fear science and actively try to suppress it.
Yes, J-Mac, ID wants a return to Europe circa 1300. They can then be once again in control, and the 'good 'ole days' will be back, and 'order' restored.
It's all in the, 'Wedge Document', freely available on Wiki. Read it and tremble; talk about, "Expelled"!! rvb8
KF,
"Who are in leadership of key institutions of influence, education, information and decision-making?"
All I know is that it's no longer the Catholic church or the majority of religions of this world...with very few exceptions...
Thank God for that or we would have another Catholic Inquisition where heretics like me would be hunted down and burned alive or crucified along with families to discourage anybody from rebellion...
Would you like another inquisition to bring the true catholic morals to the front and save the civilization from catastrophe?
How about letting the catholic church to conspire again against the ungodly, just like they did with Hitler against the ungodly Bolsheviks?
Would Hitler have had the guts to do what he had done had he not had the support and the blessing of the Vatican? J-Mac
Good post, KF. Thank you. Truth Will Set You Free
I can actually read this site and know the authors of individual pieces quite easily now:
Subjectivity, objectivity, morality= kairos; usually.
Pieces cut and pasted from genuine science sites, or quotes from non-entities, and conspiracy theorists= NEWS.
Barry is in charge of anger, and straight out plagirism, qoute mining, and, 'the Gish Gallop'.
I read the title, and know the author. rvb8
Dionisio @ 14
But we have miserably ignored it since we decided to do things our own way. Paul Anka’s song “My Way” is very popular. John Lennon’s “Imagine” too. Both form the hymn of Hades.
No, that's "Between The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea", surely. Seversky
critical rationalist @ 18
Quickly skimming the OP, this popped out at me….
Let us ponder our ways and where our civilisation is patently heading:
Cartoon: Shut up and do as you’re told you morons
It's the Cliff Notes version of civilizational collapse... Seversky
critical rationalist @ 18
Quickly skimming the OP, this popped out at me….
Let us ponder our ways and where our civilisation is patently heading:
Cartoon: Shut up and do as you’re told you morons
It's the Cliff Notes version of civilizational collapse Seversky
I resent it when someone uses misleading language to create the impression that they hold a common sense position, such as objective morality or guided evolution, when in fact, they hold an irrational view, such as subjective morality or unguided evolution.
A subjectivist, for example, should not say that "murder is evil," because it leads his readers to believe that he embraces objective morality. He should be honest and say, "I don't *like* murder, but I can't really say that it *is* wrong. It just *seems* wrong to me."
Similarly, a Christian Darwinist should not say "God guided evolution" because it leads his readers to believe that he embraces teleology. He should be honest and say, "evolution is a purposeless, mindless process that did not have man in mind. God had little or nothing to do with it."
The reason that people write in a fog is so that readers will have difficulty penetrating it. By the time they get around to defining their terms, usually under pressure, we discover the truth: They are trying to have it both ways, using the language of common sense to argue for a nonsensical position. StephenB
Quickly skimming the OP, this popped out at me....
Let us ponder our ways and where our civilisation is patently heading:
Cartoon: Shut up and do as you're told you morons
"Doing what you're told" refers to a authoritative source telling you what to do and not to think about it. It reflects the assumption that ideas are not subject to criticism and, therefore, cannot be improved.
This is quite certainly not my position in the least.
Apparently, the only problem with that cartoon is that I'm just not following the right source. You know, the one you somehow managed to infallibly identify, infallibly interpret, etc. Do as you're told by the authoritative source and don't question it. critical rationalist
D
huh?
Sorry. Inside joke. I apologize. You didn’t deserve it. JSmith
JSmith @15:
huh? Dionisio
D
Paul Anka’s song “My Way” is very popular. John Lennon’s “Imagine” too. Both form the hymn of Hades.
Thank you Dionisio. I haven’t laughed this hard since someone claimed that frequency equals wavelength. JSmith
Where do we get the idea that human life is associated with dignity at every stage since conception?
Primarily from the objective truth revealed to us.
Because that dignity is rooted in Imago Dei.
There's nothing above that.
But we have miserably ignored it since we decided to do things our own way. Paul Anka's song "My Way" is very popular. John Lennon's "Imagine" too. Both form the hymn of Hades. Dionisio
KF,
Spot on. Dionisio
J-M: Who are in leadership of key institutions of influence, education, information and decision-making? Lessee, the shedding of innocent blood is as clear an issue in ethics as we can get. And yet for 40+ years we have had a global holocaust of 800+ millions targetting the most innocent of all, and rising at 1 million more per week. Who argued the case, on what basis, who led in this march of inflicting death of the inconvenient as the proper solution to social problems? Was it the popes since the 1960's: John XXIII, Paul VI, JP I, JPII, Benedict, Francis? Was it the Dalai Lama? Was it Billy Graham? Was it Chuck Colson? Mother Theresa of Calcutta and Albania? Was it the many many people who have peacefully assembled in Washington DC every January to mourn and to seek reform? How are such typically portrayed? What about those who influenced, made, promoted and tried to make such actions seem to be promotion of women's rights and even a solution to over-population, etc etc? What does that say about this generation, when holocaust is portrayed as good and objection as oppression? And, I repeat, if we cannot get this issue straight, live ongoing holocaust implicating the whole world and especially the governance classes who influence, make and promote or implement the big decisions, we cannot be seen as credible on any other moral issue, period. KF kairosfocus
J-Mac @10:
The greatest crime in history was committed by the most religious people.
The human spiritual core is irremediably sick. There's no natural remedy for that fatal malady.
Forget religion. It doesn't help.
We're all spiritually dead.
Christ doesn't make bad people good.
He makes spiritually dead people live.
Everything else is tabloid gossiping of the worse kind, specially when it's sugarcoated with religion. Dionisio
KF,
There are over 7 billion religious people in the world that't over 90% of population with almost 2.5 billion Christians-that's over a quarter of all population and 33% of all religious people...
Why is our civilization patently heading "off the cliff"?
Shouldn't be the other way around? The morals you have been preaching are supposed to be self-evident truths and most religions preach the same thing...
So, what is wrong? I don't get it... J-Mac
KF, when you say it perfectly and all is said there is nothing to add :-)
OK, I'll add this:: The purpose now becomes how to convince those not in the choir and to chastise/change/remove those in positions of authority who accept relativism which in 100 percent of the cases can be described as this is good because it is good relative to me. tribune7
KF, yes, agree, it is my personal hope that things have not quite come to that yet, but every time I look around, and specially at myself, I realize that OT Prophet Jeremiah's description of the human condition unfortunately seems more accurate than the constant Pi expressed with gazillion decimal places.
However, your timely warnings in this website, which -as you indicated in another thread, seems very visible according to ranking.com stats- might persuade many anonymous readers to seriously review their unproven assumptions and pursue the true Light, which is the only remedy for the fatal malady of this world. Dionisio
Trib, any particular or general thoughts? KF kairosfocus
D, as in: remnant-in-waiting, save yourselves from this untoward generation. Even as, brands snatched from the burning. Let us hope it has not quite come to that -- the Noah's Ark option: remnant counter-culture of witness and survival into the new age after the collapse of ruin through stubborn march of folly. KF kairosfocus
Great points, KF. tribune7
F/N: Added a new graf, to illustrate the IS-OUGHT gap memorably. Maybe, even as a logo. If Spectre and Meltdown have logos why not this longstanding, crucial problem? KF kairosfocus
The only valid moral principles are absolutely objective, rooted in the nature of our own Creator.
Everything else is worth as much as tabloid gossiping (or maybe even less?). Dionisio
"Is it too late to turn back?"
Individually, it's not too late to truly repent and turn to our Maker, before this Age of Grace ends. There's nothing better to do while we still breathe.
But this accursed world is doomed to disappear. Then a new one will be created. It's written in the Christian Scriptures. Nothing we can do to change it. Dionisio
On subjectivity vs objectivity of moral principles and the importance of self-evidently true moral principles kairosfocus
