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. KFkairosfocus
January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
Oh goody,
abortion+kairos+religion+holocaust+interlocuters+murder+irrationality= ID science.rvb8
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
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." KFkairosfocus
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
J-Mac @56,
Huh?Dionisio
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
"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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
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
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
JS:
And everybody who has ever lived will go through the stage of death. And your point is?
Abortion is homicideET
January 10, 2018
January
01
Jan
10
10
2018
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
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
