This was a topic i thought of in school the other day. Some of us--myself included-- believe that good/evil, moral/immoral, etc. came from two beings not of this world--those two being God and Satan. I just can't see how man/something earthly could plan out what is good and what is bad without some outside help.

Now since atheists don't believe in God(I'm not creating this thread for the purpose of debating whether God exists. Leave that for other threads.)Where do they believe good/evil come from and Why?

i guess you did not spark enough interest but believe me, you sparked mine...

i used to readily accept the God/Satan theory just because it was pounded into my little catholic brain since i was a child... now that i am all grown up, i have a different theory... what if being a good or evil person was a learned behaviour? what if not only what you "teach" your progeny is some type of a repetitive pattern or syndrome but what "DNA" you give them also?... a vicious cycle...

and rather than just being a learned behavioural response to your environment and experiences (self-preservation or self-annihilation), you actually have a "hate" gene or a "want to hurt someone bad and see blood" gene or "gotta love" gene or "want to help" gene... and what if this predisposition to evil or good could actually somehow be transmitted at conception? like Ted Bundy's child could never be good because at the time of conception Ted was a freakin evil raping/murdering piece of shit?

hatred, envy and pride being genetically programmed would explain a lot of the fucked up people on this earth... why are they so evil, and enjoy killing and raping children you ask? because they're fuckin parents did... psycho's breed psycho's? that is kinda gross to ponder though... and just plain scary... i would hate to believe i was predestined to kill or hurt anyone because i had scum of the earth parents...

i would like to believe i was in complete control of my own actions and reactions to my existence... i would not like to think that because of "this" then ultimately "that" will occur... i don't believe in the "future" as an attainable goal and therefore all i have is this NOW and this MOMENT which i am living, it can be changed at any given time through free will and choice, thus altering my projected future anyways... so how could i forecast how i would react to a situation without somehow being exposed to it first?... like in the womb or in the scrotum... haha... yeah bad spermatozoa... bad ova... weird.. i digress...

that would explain the "bad seed" theory also, the apple does not fall far from the tree... and if your parents were low down dirty rotten bastards then you too are predestined (rather doomed) to be your mother/father's child and be exactly or near exact as them... the same fashion in which they processed information to be either good or evil by the choices they made is what you are bound to do... because they made you... sheesh... that would suck pretty bad actually...

whatcha think? plausible? what if there is no great dividing force, no divinity, no pure evil and it really is just us humans on this lonely planet out in the middle of freakin nowhere? and what if we want so desperately to accept as true the God/Satan concept in order to feel as though someone is really out there controlling everything and looking after us when in reality we are helpless pawns in a game called humanity? this ideology could mean that we are missing the forest for the trees... if we are the ultimate responsible party then by definition we are all evil and all good... we are all God and all Satan... we just have to figure out which God we choose to worship... our good God or our bad one...

D

i just thought of something else related to my post above... let us say that 2 relatively good, kind loving people decide to have a child and at the age of 7 that child is molested by a neighbour... realistically the genes of the child are well in place and not alterable at this stage but what if a mutation occurs at the cellular level due to extreme shock and/or trauma? the fact that pedophiles are 9 times out of 10 victims of pedophilia themselves proves interesting... almost as though the usual normally developing sexual mindset is completely erradicated and replaced with the evil twisted one... because he was hurt he must now hurt others?

Feasible?

D

Hey at least I got somebody. thanks for the feedback Exotic.

So let me make sure I break your answer down correctly(tell me if I don't): Good/Evil traits are either genetic or as the result of something traumatic.

if that's true then explain this story to me: Stalin once asked his son how far he would go{torture} somebody to get some information out of them. The response: torture's wrong. The child of Stalin, a man who had Hitler 2:1 in executions, said that torture is wrong. Where does that fit in?

Also, character is from what one has learned, not the genes. Character is what affects your decision-making and what is right and wrong.

And on the pedophillia issue...by what you wrote(or my interpretation thereof) most of those who are molested as a child are set to become pedophiles. I can't think of a specific case, but I'm sure there have been many times where those molested didn't become pedophiles. Some might even have used their experience to make them even more against pedophillia.

But to get to the heart of the matter, where do these bad genes come from? It would seem to me that you could trace bad genes to something nonhuman, something like Satan. Are we all given bad genes and some of us balance it out with good genes?

Where am I going wrong?

Originally posted by jcarl
Where do they believe good/evil come from and Why?

Good and evil are subjective abstract concepts. They didn't "come from" anywhere as it were, not any more than any intangible abstract does, but are merely human creations to try to help us make sense of the world.

So your're saying that good/evil are relative, Correct?

You say that they were created by man. Who would have the authority to make such decisions as to what is right or wrong?

Originally posted by jcarl
So your're saying that good/evil are relative, Correct?

You say that they were created by man. Who would have the authority to make such decisions as to what is right or wrong?

You do understand the meanings of the word relative and subjective, don't you? No one gets to make "Such decisions" (By which I suppose you mean what is objectively, or at least what will be universally recognized as good and evil). It's all in the eye of the beholder.

In this case, is there really a difference between subjectivity and relativity? If you believe something is right, your're inserting your feelings--subjective--but that feeling is only relative to what you believe.

I think about it like this(and you can take this however you wish): Think of a basketball game. There are certain things you can/can't do--you can't walk with the ball, you can't hack a guy, etc. These are the rules and even if you disagree with them, they still apply to you. If it wasn't that way, then here's what would happen: someone has the ball and their team is behind. So the guy pushes over the guy guarding him. That's not the right thing to do, but subjectively the guy thinks it ok b/c he wants to win. Isn't that a foolish way to do things?

What I meant by ,"such decisions," is that since you said that good/evil were human creations, I took it a bit further and said, who would really have the authority to make,"Such decisions."

I do see what your're saying. I just don't agree.

I think this article from Filosofem.com has a good theory. These moral concepts are ways for the weak and feeble to survive amongst the strong.


Good and Evil
Essay by A. Xeraxis

Good and evil are two of the most well respected forces on Earth. Many strive to become the servant of one, or both, and some use the terms to their advantage by fooling others into believing that they are of the ‘good’ category, and by threatening them into fearing the ‘evil’ category. Many religions employ the concept of good and evil to their advantage in this manner. It is a very clever idea, in fact, that those who are weaker, might claim to have insight into something that is far more powerful than their enemies. Their enemies will then think twice before they strike. In modern religion, it is apparently not wise to sin, for if one does so, then they will eventually end up in a place such as Hell, and be condemned to suffer eternally. This, of course, is the method that the oppressors use to gain control of the masses, and it works brilliantly. Instead of using physical force to convince others to follow them, they use fear. The word ‘sin’ is really only another term for rebellion against the oppressors. After thousands of years of belief in the concept of good and evil, it has become an accepted truth, and is no longer questioned. The concept, however, is extremely flawed.
In the early stages of human evolution, we were simply another race of animals. We spent all of our time finding food, water, shelter and suitable mates who would provide us with children. Over time, we developed the need for, and the understanding of, power. We also realized the potential of power, and sought to use it. Some used physical activity to demand respect, but others, who were weaker in this way, eventually found other means. What these individuals found, was empathy, and specifically, empathy in others. If they could cause another to feel regret for their actions, then they could avoid being attacked by many, and even seek aid from those who would have otherwise destroyed them. Eventually, standards were formed, which society lived by as a whole, and in this way, the weaker were protected from two things. They were protected from others in their society, and they were also protected from nature. Now that this new set of social principals had been formed, they needed a name. The name was ethics, and eventually, it became socially and legally unacceptable for humans to live without them.

Around the same time as the development of ethics, humans began to question their existence. They began to ask how it was that they had come to live as they were doing, and why. More importantly, they sought to find immortality, or reassurance that their lives would not amount to nothing when they died. Often, when humans become separated from their parents, or from other caretakers, they are not strong enough to be self-content in a world where they are so alone. In order to comfort themselves, they may begin to imagine that there are other, more powerful creatures who look after them. This idea also answers previously unanswerable questions, such as the origin of being, and comforts weaker humans by providing them with immortality, or ‘life after death’. Especially in the undeveloped Earth, where Science is scarce, religion can be the only possibly answer, and so, it becomes the accepted truth. While some see religion as answers to their questions, and as comfort for their problems, others see it slightly differently. They, still longing for power, see religion as a suitable tool for providing them with it, and they realize that when religion and ethics are combined, something else is created. Morals are created.

Morals, similarly to ethics, are rules by which people ‘should’ live by, which dictate the line between right and wrong. The difference is that morals are often enforced by religious beliefs, and by superstition. By using morals, the weaker could protect themselves from the stronger, by creating rules, which the stronger would be forced to live by, due to superstition, and due to their empathy for others. These morals served, also, to give the weak enough power, that they could eventually take control of millions of people, and force upon those people, their own set of rules, or, as this set of rules is also called, religion. In order to enforce a ‘right’ way of living upon people, though, there needed to be a ‘wrong’ way of living, which could be frowned upon, and feared. Due to the unforgiving tendencies of nature, and of its product, chaos, these became the foundations of the wrong way of life. It is morally wrong to kill others, and it is morally wrong to take from others in order to benefit yourself. It is morally right to keep the weaker members of society alive, rather than let them die, like nature would have, which was morally wrong. It is morally wrong to lie and to deceive, and to steal, and it is morally wrong to hate. Some of the rules, which were more important to the weak, became more important rules to everyone, and they were given the name of ‘sin’ by many religions. Once sin had been established, the ‘evil’ way of life had been established, and so had the reasons for avoiding evil. In much of the western world, these reasons were Hell, the punishment, and Satan, the frightener. All of these things became embedded in the structure of society, so that, regardless of religious status, the morals and ethics were the right way, even though they are the unnatural way, and the natural, chaotic way, became the wrong way.

Why do people listen to and abide by these morals, though? If a truthful individual was to consider them for long enough, they would surly see that it is personally detrimental to abide by them. For the morals serve as a barrier that protects the weak from the strong, and from the natural course of the universe. Humans are being fooled into protecting the weak, and by doing so, are weakening themselves. Certainly it is all right for one human to protect another who he or she loves or likes, but the current moral code insists that all humans must help each other. It also insists that killing is wrong. Why is it wrong, though? The reasons for this statement are basic. It is wrong to kill another human being because “how would you feel if you were in that situation.” The answer to this is often “I will be in that situation if I help that individual”, and this is, alone, a very important answer, but I would suggest that another, equally important answer is “Because it does not benefit me to help them.”

In nature, which we are, contrary to certain modern beliefs, certainly a part of, we can see plainly before our eyes that one creature will help another, if it benefits it personally. Obviously, we are a little more intelligent as humans, than many other animals are, but this applies to us also, and I would argue that it has been wrongfully given the title of ‘evil’, when in fact, if we were to live this way, we would be a far stronger race. In fact, by keeping the weaker alive, we are defying nature. When we waste our time, and our energy, and our resources, and our technology, on keeping alive the weak, we are slowly becoming the weak. Soon, if we are not already, we will all be weak, and we will all be miserable.

‘Evil’, as it is used in everyday modern life, relates mostly to personally beneficial and positive things, which cause others to be at a disadvantage. Indulgence, for example, is a sin that is often associated with Satan, or the ‘Devil’, but what is it actually? Indulgence is a positive thing for the indulger, but for others, there may be less of the indulged substance left afterwards, which they themselves might have otherwise indulge in. So it now becomes clear that Christianity, Judaism and other modern religions, which use good and evil to their advantage, are simply fooling people into disadvantaging themselves, so that others might benefit from it. Do you really want to live and die as a peon of this counterproductive society?

In conclusion, I will say that I believe good and evil are non-existent, and that in fact, humans created both, in order to gain power, and in order to achieve comfort from false realities. In nature, there is no good and there is no evil. There is no positive, and there is no negative.

There is only chaos.

I believe that good and evil are concepts that are pounded into us while we are growing up...by our parents, our environment, our society, etc...

I do not think that these concepts are a steadfast thing, as christians will tell you, but it is something that you have to decide for yourself. It is human nature to be evil, and to do things to both hurt your self and to hurt others so that you can benefit from the situation, and that is why our entire socity is so ass-backwards.

I think that the way that religion pounds good and evil into peoples head is wrong, and I think that these concepts have to be aquired a the person themself, not some bishop imposing his ideas on you.

I dont know if that makes any sense, but in conclusion, I believe that good and evil is something that we need to evolve within ourselvs, and the moral law that is governed by religion is dead. I believe that if we as a society do not back away from the moral law that religion imposes on us, we will never be a beneficial society.

Originally posted by jcarl
I think about it like this(and you can take this however you wish): Think of a basketball game. There are certain things you can/can't do--you can't walk with the ball, you can't hack a guy, etc. These are the rules and even if you disagree with them, they still apply to you.
I think you just supported the relative theory. Just because you walk, hack, etc doesn't make that action bad. Maybe it was part of a strategy. Even moreso, what is considered walking/hacking is subjective (as is seen by the need for refs and bad calls).

If it wasn't that way, then here's what would happen: someone has the ball and their team is behind. So the guy pushes over the guy guarding him. That's not the right thing to do, but subjectively the guy thinks it ok b/c he wants to win. Isn't that a foolish way to do things?
Foolish or not, that's how life works. Society sets up the rules. You ALWAYS have the option of not following them. It all depends on if the gain is worth the possible punishment. The only different is that, in life, possible punishments include guilt.

It seems to be fairly obvious (to me atleast) that no concrete right/wrong exists... or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And2000x,
If that article represents what you believe, then I do believe you could be called an anarchist, and that's some dangerous stuff.

Altec,
I agree; the Inquisitionization of morals isn't the way to do things. However, some of us embrace the things said in things like the Bible, and true Chrisitians accept it for themselves, not because someone told you to.

Persol,
I guess I didn't go far enough with my analogy. Yes, the rules are subjective, but to who are they subjective? In my analogy, God is the ref. He makes the calls. We as humans might disagree with his judgment, but that doesn't mean that God made a bad call.
You have the option of not doing the right thing(even moreso, we can argue what that it's not the right thing)but you must be willing to accept the ramifications of that.
I'm not sure I understand what you're last statement said:
that no concrete right/wrong exists... or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

In my mind, the truth exists as concrete. Some people have different views of what is right and wrong, but that doesn't mean that their different views are right.

good and evil are quite simple concepts which i believe to be inherent to a perspective. evil is a bit of a misnomer.. it basically means, really really bad. so basically you're talking about good and bad. good and bad are relative terms regarding what is and is not perceived as beneficial to you or society by you. in that regard good and evil are merely terms describing the "relative benefit" as viewed from the perspective of the individual employing the label.

so they came from the ability/need to communicate our impression of the environment we think we're subject to.

Originally posted by jcarl
I guess I didn't go far enough with my analogy. Yes, the rules are subjective, but to who are they subjective? In my analogy, God is the ref. He makes the calls.
Then this discussion is pointless. If you simply call on a God and say that his opinion is always right, then we have no discussion. The simple fact is, if there is a god, we don't know what he thinks or what he will punish. As such, society is our ref.

I'm not sure I understand what you're last statement said:
[Q]that no concrete right/wrong exists... or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
If their was a universal truth, we would just have to demonstrate it, not argue about it.

Some people have different views of what is right and wrong, but that doesn't mean that their different views are right.
It doesn't mean that they are wrong either.

If that article represents what you believe, then I do believe you could be called an anarchist, and that's some dangerous stuff.

Ha ha. I am no anarchist friend. I am more similair to the third position, or fascist (fascism is the only form of government put into practice under anti-humanist, amoral philosophy). Anarchy is based off of moral assumptions and the protection of the weak, such as the 'good will' of human beings. They assume that without laws people will be happy and volunteer their time, when this is not so. In fact, anarchy is opposed to all things natural. For example, scientists have designed anarchist bee hives, which are bee hives unable to produce a dominant queen. Thus the hive breaks down in a few weeks and all die.

It may be true that people who embrace religion are embracing the morals and the ethics of that sect on their own free will, but my question to you is how those values or morals could carry over to a society that is thousands of years from the time that they were written. It seems to me that morals, ethics, and values have to adjust with society, or we will be stuck in the past...and if we are stuck in the past then how can we move forward and better ourselves on a personal level or a larger level like society?

interesting question, considering i just started reading paradise lost. in the context of the poem, god comes off as a real asshole, the seat of evil. more like a european despot almighty than a loving father creator. it describe the "hell" satan endures and man, i really feel sorry for him. you feel him as a man who has been driven to thoughts of revenge at the hand of his ruthless captor. how people read this and interpretted the origin of evil as satan's doing is beyond me. i'll tell you, i'd never stand for a ruler like god is in this poem.

"Good and evil are subjective abstract concepts. They didn't "come from" anywhere as it were, not any more than any intangible abstract does, but are merely human creations to try to help us make sense of the world."

maybe i'm just looking at the question through my swedishfish glasses but i thought that was a given. i took it to mean "how did people come up with the concept of good vs evil"?

It came from Gruad, of course.

Originally posted by Persol
Then this discussion is pointless. If you simply call on a God and say that his opinion is always right, then we have no discussion. The simple fact is, if there is a god, we don't know what he thinks or what he will punish. As such, society is our ref.

But you see I believe that God,through the Bible, tells us what is right and what is wrong.

we would just have to demonstrate it, not argue about it.

Demonstrate it how?

It doesn't mean that they are wrong either.

Look, if good and evil are abstract and not concrete, then does anybody do anything wrong? In Hitler's mind, it was the right thing--even moreso, it was *Beneficial*--to mankind to exterminate the Jews. That was his version of right. Was that right? OF course not, but it was rationalized as right in the mind of the executor.
To take it a step further, if nobody does anything wrong--if it's all relative/subjective--then can anybody be punished for anything.

and2000x,
I figured you would dismiss that, but that article has some very anarchistic thoughts in it.

swedishfish,
Although you did misinterpret my original question, you do bring up another powerful question: "How did people come up with the concepts of good and evil?" I'll take that one step further, and ask this: By whom were we given authority to develop things such as right and wrong? And what would give us a motive to follow them? You see I believe that if it comes from man, then his fellow members of mankind don't really have an incentive to follow. But if it comes from God speaking through men, that would make more sense, at least in my eyes.

Altec,
Why wouldn't morals and ethics carry over over time?

Originally posted by jcarl
But you see I believe that God,through the Bible, tells us what is right and what is wrong.

A testament to your powers of discernment.

Look, if good and evil are abstract and not concrete, then does anybody do anything wrong? In Hitler's mind, it was the right thing--even moreso, it was *Beneficial*--to mankind to exterminate the Jews. That was his version of right. Was that right? OF course not, but it was rationalized as right in the mind of the executor.

Now you're getting it. Well except for that last part. You have to concede that he WAS right, to him (since that's basically what you already said). Why was he wrong to you? I agree that he was wrong, but I don't need the bible to figure that one out ya know? Kind of basic to the whole "living in a society" thing.

To take it a step further, if nobody does anything wrong--if it's all relative/subjective--then can anybody be punished for anything.

Wow, you show a glimmer of light. This is rational thinking jcarl! You go! Good questions! Good job!

I think we can say that truth is good and concrete. What is "good" certainly is not abstract in that respect. Most christians believe that evil did not come from Satan but the freewill that God gave us. Of course Satan is lighting the match but only if we allow him.

Originally posted by okinrus
I think we can say that truth is good and concrete.
You can say that but do you think it makes it true? I think there are several types of truths. A "relative" truth would be an example which contradicts your claim.Originally posted by okinrus What is "good" certainly is not abstract in that respect."good" is PURE ABSTRACT, so you're wrong. "good" is absolutely subjective.Originally posted by okinrus Most christians believe that evil did not come from Satan but the freewill that God gave us.Most christians have a lot of eronious beliefs. Cult members are that way by definition.

That glimmer of supposed light will probably be stomped out here. That last question about punishment was a sarcastic question. I think that's a very dangerous way to run a civilized society. And by that "logic", a guy like Hilter couldn't be brought to justice.
Nobody would need the Bible to tell them that genocide is wrong, but it does say that murder is wrong, just to reinforce it.

Wesmorris, Could you give me a specific example as to where a relative truth exists? When does 2+2 not equal 4? When does the sun not rise in the east and set in the west?

Originally posted by jcarl
Wesmorris, Could you give me a specific example as to where a relative truth exists? When does 2+2 not equal 4?It's easiest just to use your example:Originally posted by jcarl
In Hitler's mind, it was the right thing--even moreso, it was *Beneficial*--to mankind to exterminate the Jews. That was his version of right.It doesn't matter how much we don't like it. To him it was true.

More people are nice than are mean.

Is that truth?

Life is great!

Is that truth?

Mean people suck.

Is that truth?

I think we can say that truth is good and concrete

'Truth' can neither be good nor evil, which are relative terms and have no grounding in reality. Sometimes the truth can destroy people's minds and that is certainly 'bad' to them. Imagine learning the world is round for the first time, certainly such a concept seems evil and may hurt others, but it's the truth nonetheless.

For me I think 'morality' should be removed from the equation of good and bad, because it attaches mystical notions to it. Things should instead be seen as:

good- what helps society.
bad- what hurts society.

This can almost be vague in itself. For example: taking away products with CFCs may be seen by some as hurting society because it destroys technological progress. However, getting rid of CFCs protects the environment and forces society to find safer alternatives.


I think this song sort of sums up the God concept from Dante's perspective: (it's not exactly grade A poetry)

Morbid Angel:

10. God Of Emptiness

Lies - And you fill their souls
With all oppressions of this world
And all the glory you receive?
So, What makes you supreme?
Lies - Your crown is falling
I offer fantasy
And you, you creator are
Blind with envy

Let the children come to me
Their mother loves me, so shall they
Woman, bleeding, ate my gifts
Man was close behind
Just like a snake I'm slithering
Through my world divine
And like the cat I'm stalking
I'll take your soul and You'll
Be like me
In emptiness, free

Just bow to me faithfully
Bow to me splendidly
Just bow to me faithfully
Bow to me splendidly
Just bow to me faithfully
Bow to me splendidly

Wesmorris,
My bad, I read your post and had the word truth in my head. This is what I meant to ask: Can you give me an example of relative *good*?

And2000x,
Ok so good equals benefitting society. Then why are so many people of the persuasion that capital punishment is wrong, as it does benefit society since they can no longer kill?

I'm a bit confused about what you are asking.

People are opposed to capital punishment because they are idiotic self-moralizing Judeo-Christians who deserve capital punishment themselves. People oppose all types of things for religious or dogmatic ethical reasons without any grounding in reality.

I don't know which "Judeo-Christians" you know, but the ones that I know are very much so in favor of capital punishment.

Jcarl how can the morals and ethics that were taken from thousands of years ago be in any way beneficial to the society that has moved forth from that time? In the bible it says that women should always serve men unconditionally...is that right in todays society, or is it right period? In the bible it says that it is wrong to be a homosexual. Is it still wrong to be a homosexual in today's society...a bishop that is a homosexual was just allowed to remain bishop. There are many things that the bible tries to plant into our heads that will hinder the human race from moving on, and it is necessary to move on as a species so that we can better ourselves as a whole.

While I agree with your points Altec, wouldn't you say that current positions on women or homosexuals are based on moral positions themselves? For thousands of years the woman's place was to raise the child and tend to the man. To do otherwise was seen as 'morally' wrong. However, in modern times, the idea of a woman being a housewife is said to be 'morally wrong'. Do you see how the standard reversed? The same goes with homosexuals. At one time it was thought that homosexuality was pure evil, now it seems that no one can question a homosexual, a minority or a cripple without being judged as 'evil' or 'unethical'.
Ever since the fall of pagan Europe, the moralists took over and that is unfortunate.


On Judeo-Christians:
I'm talking about the more liberal brands of Judeo-Christians, the ones who like to picket and spew humanist garbage. In fact, liberals not even be religious, they must simply adhere to some stupid concept of morality.

That is what I was trying to say, you just seem to be able to word things better than me. I believe that we need to stray more and more away from the morals and ethics of the bible and create these things for ourselves. The bible cannot tell me what is right for me, and I think that it in essence hinders me because it plants those seeds in my head that I believe to be both morally and ethically wrong.

Originally posted by altec
[B]Jcarl how can the morals and ethics that were taken from thousands of years ago be in any way beneficial to the society that has moved forth from that time?

How about the ten Commandments? Or the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus takes the "Thou shalt not commit adultery" one step further by saying in Matt. 5:28<"Whosoever looketh upon a woman and lust after her, has already commited adultery in their heart."
Whether you agree that the Bible is of divine inspiration or not, you must admit that if people followed the Bible's teachings--along with the writings of Confuscious, Buddha and others--that this would be a very well off society.

In the bible it says that women should always serve men unconditionally...is that right in todays society, or is it right period?

It is right period. Men have spiritual authority over women as a result of the first sin(see Gen. 3:16). However, that doesn't give the man the right to abuse or take advantage of his wife. Paul, as a microphone for God, said,"Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for her."

In the bible it says that it is wrong to be a homosexual. Is it still wrong to be a homosexual in today's society...a bishop that is a homosexual was just allowed to remain bishop.

That is so against Biblical teaching it's not even funny. In Romans 1:27,"Likewise men , leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in lust for one another, men doing with men that which is unseemly...." The Episcopal Church it can now be said is on the slippery slope away from God.

Exactly, if any progress is to be made the bible (and the communist manifesto) need to go onto the burning pile.

Things can be approached in a non-moral way, but still apply concepts of good/bad (as socially positive/negative):

The homosexual issue is being approached in an idiotic manner. If two gays want to get married I don't think it's an issue, but in the reproductive outlook any promotion of homosexuality is wholly unacceptable.

My standpoint on females is that they ARE the mothers of the children and therefore should concentrate on raising their children instead of getting jobs and joining feminist groups. Male and female each have something unique to offer their child and when roles are confused society becomes decadent.

Originally posted by altec
. The bible cannot tell me what is right for me, and I think that it in essence hinders me because it plants those seeds in my head that I believe to be both morally and ethically wrong.

You can believe that if you wish, I'm not going to try and stop you if you're cemented in that belief. Just hope for your own sake that you're right.

Originally posted by jcarl
Wesmorris,
My bad, I read your post and had the word truth in my head. This is what I meant to ask: Can you give me an example of relative *good*?

Did you think to try to answer your own question first or did you just ask without thinking eh?

Surely you can think of some examples for yourself.

I can't think of any because I don't think they exist. So enlighten me.

Originally posted by jcarl
I can't think of any because I don't think they exist. So enlighten me.

you lazy bastard. next time you'll have to try harder. i'll cave to demonstrate my point.

how about spanking. if I spank my kid is it good or bad? what if i spank them and they grow up to murder the person who would have destroyed the world? do you think there is any relative good in any of that?

what about brocolli? to me, it used to be bad but now it's good.

what about abortion clinics? are they good or bad? i'll bet you'll get some fanatically insistent answers on that one.

what about capitalism? is it good or bad? what about this conversation? what about my motivation to make you think for yourself? which is it? good? bad?

what is good for you isn't necessarily good for me (since our tastes (in all things, laws, women, food, ad infinitum) differ)... wouldn't you agree?

the direct implication is that good and bad are relative. it's pretty much that simple.

When we use relative good it usually implies lack of information. We do not know the complete consequences so we are unable to judge it is true or false. I don't think this means that good is actually relative. We are just unable to judge.

Originally posted by okinrus
When we use relative good it usually implies lack of information. We do not know the complete consequences so we are unable to judge it is true or false.
No, when Hitler believed killing jews was good, to him and others like him, it was good. Regardless of our objections, it was good to them. I don't lack the ability to judge, it's easy to see. Why don't you take the example I gave and break them down on a case per case basis rather than make some silly incorrect blanket statement with no real bearing on much besides "what you think" - which is generally unimpressive.
Originally posted by okinrus
I don't think this means that good is actually relative. We are just unable to judge.
Why don't you try for an actual argument rather than restating the same thing several times.

Let me ask you all:

If it I really think something is good, it IS good to me, right?

For instance, blowjobs. I have had a LOT of blowjobs performed on me and for chrissake man, they're good. I've cherished all but a few. Christian types are supposed to think blowjobs are bad. I'm sure many do. To me though, they have made my life better by relieving a lot of stress.

How can you deny the relative goodness?

Originally posted by okinrus
When we use relative good it usually implies lack of information. Well, um, duh.
We always have a lack of information. The only thing humans known for sure is that we know nothing for sure. 'Facts' always change and with them, what is 'good'.

It is pure ignorance for us to think we can determine was is in the best interest for somebody else, and this would have to be integral to deciding upon a universal 'good'.

I don't think this means that good is actually relative. We are just unable to judge.
The point is that we can NEVER be 100% sure. Even if there is a universal good, who gives a damn... we'll never be able to judge for sure. It is pointless to talk about anything besides relative good, as relative good/bad is all we have.

Originally posted by wesmorris
No, when Hitler believed killing jews was good, to him and others like him, it was good. Regardless of our objections, it was good to them. I don't lack the ability to judge, it's easy to see. Why don't you take the example I gave and break them down on a case per case basis rather than make some silly incorrect blanket statement with no real bearing on much besides "what you think" - which is generally unimpressive.

Why don't you try for an actual argument rather than restating the same thing several times.

Let me ask you all:

If it I really think something is good, it IS good to me, right?

For instance, blowjobs. I have had a LOT of blowjobs performed on me and for chrissake man, they're good. I've cherished all but a few. Christian types are supposed to think blowjobs are bad. I'm sure many do. To me though, they have made my life better by relieving a lot of stress.

How can you deny the relative goodness?


That is a very good example. Just more proof that good can be relative. ;)

It is pure ignorance for us to think we can determine was is in the best interest for somebody else, and this would have to be integral to deciding upon a universal 'good'.

There have to be some objective standards to hold people responsible for. Certainly depriving groups of people of basic essentials like food and water would be bad, however, there is no divine code saying it is 'evil' or wrong (You also have to take into account why we are starving them in the first place.) It should be absolute knowledge that destroying the entire planet would not be beneficial to plant or animal, so I think as a social rule (not a moral or religious rule) this should be considered 'bad'. There have to be standards to create a society, otherwise it collapses.

Originally posted by and2000x
There have to be standards to create a society, otherwise it collapses.

Of course, but there is no absolute good or bad, right or wrong. There is simply "what we've decided we'll go by". Attempts to assert a "higher" authority leads directly to big problems.

Of course, but there is no absolute good or bad, right or wrong. There is simply "what we've decided we'll go by". Attempts to assert a "higher" authority leads directly to big problems.

Of course not. I guess I got confused by all the posts. In history people have distorted these 'what we've decided we'll go by' standards into unequstionable moral laws. The bible for example, simply took laws and distorted them this way.

This is how it works in modern times:

Guy1: "Is it wrong to kill people?"

Guy2: "Yes. It is very wrong. For social and moral reasons."

Guy1: "What do you mean by social and moral?"

Guy2: "It is not right in social standards, because it deprives them of freedom and life. That is why it is a law."

Guy1: "Sounds good to me. I certainly don't want to be killed. But what is 'morally' wrong with it?"

Guy2: "It is morally wrong because it's just not right."

Guy1: "That's not an answer. Do you have faith in god?"

Guy2: "No. I am an athiest."

Guy1: "Then what is morally wrong about killing?"

Guy2: "It just is."

Guy1: "But if there is no dual realm of existence that you adhere to, what is morality?"

Guy2: "I've just been raised that way."

Guy1: "So you don't believe in god, but you believe in morality. So you are a thiest. Dismissed."

Is there a point in there somewhere?

No.

Originally posted by wesmorris


how about spanking. if I spank my kid is it good or bad? what if i spank them and they grow up to murder the person who would have destroyed the world? do you think there is any relative good in any of that?

what about brocolli? to me, it used to be bad but now it's good.

what about abortion clinics? are they good or bad? i'll bet you'll get some fanatically insistent answers on that one.

what about capitalism? is it good or bad? what about this conversation? what about my motivation to make you think for yourself? which is it? good? bad?

what is good for you isn't necessarily good for me (since our tastes (in all things, laws, women, food, ad infinitum) differ)... wouldn't you agree?

the direct implication is that good and bad are relative. it's pretty much that simple.

These are opinions, which are relative. Whether or not I think captitalism is good or bad is simply my idea(and I think its the best system we've got).

On a test usually all the answers I put down I think are right, but that doesn't mean that they are right.

Another example; a man's wife is really sick; he has to get her some special medicine that night or else she'll die. The only problem is that the pharmacy is closed. So he breaks in, kills the security guard, and steals the medicine. His wife recovers,who then has a child who goes on to invent a cure for cancer. But does all that still justify the fact that the man not only stole something but also killed a somebody else?

Originally posted by and2000x
There have to be some objective standards to hold people responsible for.
Well, there isn't. Each person makes their own standards (even if they are somewhat influenced by someone else's thoughts). Societal standards are just when a bunch of people who agree make it a standard.

Certainly depriving groups of people of basic essentials like food and water would be bad
Not always. Perhaps there is a limited supply. Imagine that if everybody eats, the land will be barren before the next season, and everyone dies. Depriving groups of food/water saves enough food to save 95% of the people. Is it wrong to choose to sacrifice some to save the rest? No.

however, there is no divine code saying it is 'evil' or wrong (You also have to take into account why we are starving them in the first place.)
Yep, I agree.

It should be absolute knowledge that destroying the entire planet would not be beneficial to plant or animal, so I think as a social rule (not a moral or religious rule) this should be considered 'bad'.
But you can think of a situation in which even this would be acceptable. and 'right'. Advance 2000 years into the future. Most people moved off earth, but now earth is attacking all the colonists wth a laser buried in the planet. Is it ok to defend yourselves, yeah. The point is that in the current time, you can not think of a good reason to do it. That doesn't mean their isn't one. We make rules like "don't destroy the planet" to save ourselves... not for some delegated 'right'.

There have to be standards to create a society, otherwise it collapses.
Even without society their would still be standards. But this says nothing to if they are 'right' or 'wrong'.

Originally posted by jcarl
Another example; a man's wife is really sick; he has to get her some special medicine that night or else she'll die. The only problem is that the pharmacy is closed. So he breaks in, kills the security guard, and steals the medicine. His wife recovers,who then has a child who goes on to invent a cure for cancer. But does all that still justify the fact that the man not only stole something but also killed a somebody else?

Okay: Relative in this context means that you'll get a different answer from everyone else.

Don't you think you'll get a unique answer from everyone on that scenario regarding good/evil/truth? Hello?

Good is opinion. ARGH, this is why arguing with theists is SO FRUSTRATING, because you don't have that extra sense that thinkers develop to avoid circular thinking. So like, do you see what you JUST DID? Would it be fair to say that you just argued that "good" isn't relative because "good" isn't relative. Your example in no way supported your point.

Originally posted by jcarl
These are opinions, which are relative. Whether or not I think captitalism is good or bad is simply my idea(and I think its the best system we've got).

On a test usually all the answers I put down I think are right, but that doesn't mean that they are right.

Another example; a man's wife is really sick; he has to get her some special medicine that night or else she'll die. The only problem is that the pharmacy is closed. So he breaks in, kills the security guard, and steals the medicine. His wife recovers,who then has a child who goes on to invent a cure for cancer. But does all that still justify the fact that the man not only stole something but also killed a somebody else?


Yes that can be justified. He took the life of one man, saved another life, and then moved on to save many many many more since a cure for cancer was developed from his efforts to save his wife.

Killing is not always wrong.....it has to be interperted with the situation.


I also agree with you wesmorris, it is hard to argue with a theist since they cannot seem to look at the whole picture...:rolleyes:

there's no such thing really as a definite right and a definite wrong, from a completely objective point of view.

there has to be a reference point one can compare with to determine what's good and what's bad.

that reference point is your upbringing... the environment around you... how you are conditioned from the day you're born.

if you grow up in an environment where eating dead people's liver is "good for you" and "gonna make you strong" then it's considered "good" but for you and me it's considered "bad"

and then, there's circumstances (i.e. WHY / HOW did you kill that baby?)

AND the fact that saying "good" and "bad" constitutes an opinion. and there are as many opinions as there are people in the world.

"AND the fact that saying "good" and "bad" constitutes an opinion. and there are as many opinions as there are people in the world."

Yup. then the trouble comes when we with all our different opinions try and get on with each other without hideously insulting each other every day. Then we end up with broader more applied ethics, that help us keep cohesion as a society.

no man. we end up with political correctness

PC is merely taking it too far, and is as easy a target as raving right wing racists. Take it to the other extreme and we'll have public nudity and all sorts of beahviour that help distrurb "society" eg look at the fuss kicked up about religious practises.

wesmorris and all others who responded to my last post,
So basically what you're saying is that the end result justified the means of getting to the end result. Correct?

Originally posted by jcarl
wesmorris and all others who responded to my last post,
So basically what you're saying is that the end result justified the means of getting to the end result. Correct?

No, as usual, not correct.

evil came from the north...let us hypothetically say...finland...where the people are cold and heartless.

evil is now spreading with the sales of nokia phones...

ok, in my story aobut the guy stealing the medicine to save his wife. No one would argue that stealing and killing the guard in at the very least wrong in the short term. But then his wife gets better and then has a kid who develops a cure for cancer. So you guys say that the murder and theft were justified as a result of what happened because of it. Right? So the end result of the wife getting better and all justifies the means, theft and murder, by which he got the medicine. the end justified the means. Do you agree with that?

Originally posted by wesmorris
No, as usual, not correct.

Then what is correct?

I would have thought that part of the problem with the analogy of stealing the cancer medicine and killing the guard is that you are saying its justified becasue the child develops a cure for cancer. Yet you dont know that beforehand, moreover, what if he didnt, in that case were the actions justified? I would say no. As ususal, the uncertainty is in part what makes us have such rules.

Simple I think actions such as these can't be justified, for uncertainty reasons and morality reasons.
But others that it's justified or canceled out because it save a life at bare minimum. I think thats wrong.

Originally posted by jcarl
Then what is correct?

You should trying reading comprehension. It's a more than just a fad.

Is there some reason why you can't answer my question. You say that what I said is incorrect, so I in turn asked you what is correct. Is that too much to ask?

Originally posted by jcarl
Is there some reason why you can't answer my question. You say that what I said is incorrect, so I in turn asked you what is correct. Is that too much to ask?

When it has been explained to you a thousand times, yes. It is too much to ask. You should go back, read, think and then pose a pertinent question rather than something that had NO RELEVANCE whatsoever like: "So basically what you're saying is that the end result justified the means of getting to the end result. Correct?".

What end results, what means and what result are you speaking of? As far as I can tell, this question is complete nonsense and is as such, incorrect.

So it's too much to ask, yes.

Originally posted by wesmorris

What end results, what means and what result are you speaking of? As far as I can tell, this question is complete nonsense and is as such, incorrect.

This is quoting a post I wrote earlier:
" ok, in my story aobut the guy stealing the medicine to save his wife. No one would argue that stealing and killing the guard in at the very least wrong in the short term. But then his wife gets better and then has a kid who develops a cure for cancer. So you guys say that the murder and theft were justified as a result of what happened because of it. Right? So the end result, the wife getting better and all justifies the means, theft and murder, by which he got the medicine. the end justified the means. Do you agree with that?"

This is what I meant by end result justifying the means.

Originally posted by jcarl
This is what I meant by end result justifying the means.

Think subjectivity. Yes, the end justifies the means to the people who don't have a problem with the means ya know?

Again, it's relative. Your morals are only really meaningful to you or in comparison to my own (or my lack of them (and in the context of society)) and vice versa.

I don't really feel like picking apart your example because it's pointless to the argument. You first have to define good and bad, thus you have the subjectivity of the issue. You can't just put a blanket statement on the propriety of the actions you hypothesized until you make assertions about right/wrong good/bad, etc. You may do so freely but it's imperative that you realize that others are doing the same thing and likely will not reach the same conclusions as you.

Originally posted by wesmorris

Yes, the end justifies the means to the people who don't have a problem with the means ya know?

So you would condone the murder and theft in this scenario? Just making sure I don't get the wrong idea about you answer.


You first have to define good and bad.

You won't agree with this, but this is the definition of good and bad: good, that which is right in GOD's eyes, not necessarily in that of man's. Bad is that which is against God's commandments.

You may do so freely but it's imperative that you realize that others are doing the same thing and likely will not reach the same conclusions as you.

On a math test, doesn't everyone put down what they think is right? But there exists a standard(or right answer) and if your answer, no matter how "logical", doesn't match up, then it's wrong. You might disagree; you'll have your own personal opinion of what is right[as will everyone else on the planet], but that doesn't mean your right.

Originally posted by jcarl
So you would condone the murder and theft in this scenario? Just making sure I don't get the wrong idea about you answer.

No, I wouldn't condone any of that. I don't remember your example exactly and don't feel like looking it up. Regardless you're missing the point. The point is that you are living in a complex system and you do not know the extent of your effect. Further, even if what comprises good or bad is scribed on both of our retinas we'll still have different takes on a specific case, or rather, there will be cases on which we have different opinions. In other words, even your ridiculous scripture has to be interpreted... thusly, it's relative.
Originally posted by jcarl

You won't agree with this, but this is the definition of good and bad: good, that which is right in GOD's eyes, not necessarily in that of man's. Bad is that which is against God's commandments.

Of course I don't agree with nonsense. You don't need "god's commandments" to know right and wrong, I'm just saying that due to the nature of the subjective experience, what I think is right and what you think is right will inherently differ in some capacity.
Originally posted by jcarl

On a math test, doesn't everyone put down what they think is right?

Mathematics has a formalized set of rules. People on a math test attempt to utilize their understanding of those rules. If they don't understand, they will put "what they think is right".
Originally posted by jcarl

But there exists a standard(or right answer) and if your answer, no matter how "logical", doesn't match up, then it's wrong. You might disagree; you'll have your own personal opinion of what is right[as will everyone else on the planet], but that doesn't mean your right.

Exactly. Mathematics is systematic interpretation of an abstract. Your attempt to compare that with any form of christianity with which I'm familiar is simply not pertinent. Do you see why?

Originally posted by wesmorris
No, I wouldn't condone any of that.

I didn't think you would. In fact, I don't think any sane person would.

even your ridiculous scripture has to be interpreted... thusly, it's relative.

Not so. Pick any passage of scripture. There will be only one true interpretation, that being the author's toward those which he was writing. Any other interpretation is a misinterpretation.

Of course I don't agree with nonsense. You don't need "god's commandments" to know right and wrong, I'm just saying that due to the nature of the subjective experience, what I think is right and what you think is right will inherently differ in some capacity.[Quote]

Fine, believe that if you wish. Just hope that you're right.

[Quote]Mathematics has a formalized set of rules. People on a math test attempt to utilize their understanding of those rules. If they don't understand, they will put "what they think is right".

So in mathematics a standard of right and wrong exists; then what makes the idea of a standard in everyday life so seemingly off the wall?

Exactly. Mathematics is systematic interpretation of an abstract. Your attempt to compare that with any form of christianity with which I'm familiar is simply not pertinent. Do you see why?

We can't physically see God. Therefore he is abstract. The Bible provides an interpretation--even better, a divine interpretation--of God and his plan for man.

Originally posted by jcarl
I didn't think you would. In fact, I don't think any sane person would.

It's not sanity, it's perspective.
Originally posted by jcarl

Not so. Pick any passage of scripture. There will be only one true interpretation, that being the author's toward those which he was writing. Any other interpretation is a misinterpretation.

So then since the conception of said scripture there has never been a correct interpretation. I can't wait to hear what mystical means that you'll use to contradict that?
Originally posted by jcarl

So in mathematics a standard of right and wrong exists; then what makes the idea of a standard in everyday life so seemingly off the wall?

Not in the sense you were using it. Right and wrong in the context of mathematics means correct and incorrect. There is no moral element. Inferring, for something to be correct within mathematics it must be consistent with the rules of mathematics. I can't wait for your retort regarding some sort of consistency within the bible or religion.
Originally posted by jcarl

We can't physically see God. Therefore he is abstract. The Bible provides an interpretation--even better, a divine interpretation--of God and his plan for man.

That is just retarded. Its ridiculousness speaks for itself. You do nothing but stretch the limits of stupidity to justify your goddamn stupid beliefs. Have you considered for an instant that you might be retarded? :rolleyes:

argh.

Originally posted by wesmorris


So then since the conception of said scripture there has never been a correct interpretation. I can't wait to hear what mystical means that you'll use to contradict that.

How do you draw that conclusion? In order to correctly interpret the Bible you must consider who the author is writing to and what kind of poistion they were in?

Not in the sense you were using it. Right and wrong in the context of mathematics means correct and incorrect. There is no moral element. Inferring, for something to be correct within mathematics it must be consistent with the rules of mathematics. I can't wait for your retort regarding some sort of consistency within the bible or religion.

Wait no more; In order for something to be right, it must be consistent with the Bible's teachings. There's just no way around it.

That is just retarded. Its ridiculousness speaks for itself. You do nothing but stretch the limits of stupidity to justify your goddamn stupid beliefs. Have you considered for an instant that you might be retarded? :rolleyes:

Why do you have to lower yourself to name calling? It seems as though you would have something more to say other than that.

Originally posted by jcarl
How do you draw that conclusion? In order to correctly interpret the Bible you must consider who the author is writing to and what kind of poistion they were in?

You cannot BE the author and as such cannot know his exact meaning. Per your analysis, every interpretation other than the original will be incorrect.
Originally posted by jcarl
Wait no more; In order for something to be right, it must be consistent with the Bible's teachings. There's just no way around it.

If you say so, it is. The problem is that you're making a blanket objective statement and my position directly contradicts it. As such the objectivism and thusly the weight of your argument - vanishes. Your opinion is wrong for people who aren't you unless those people choose to agree with you. I choose not to. As such in a relativer manner your assertion is ultimately nullified.
Originally posted by jcarl
Why do you have to lower yourself to name calling? It seems as though you would have something more to say other than that.

I've asked you repeatedly to think about what you type. I understand you might not be able to meet my expectations, but it's frustrating. I attempt to admonish you in hopes of motivating you to focus (thusly relieving my attack) and relieving some of the stress the frustration of a conversation with you brings. I suppose the main function is venting.

Originally posted by wesmorris
You cannot BE the author and as such cannot know his exact meaning. Per your analysis, every interpretation other than the original will be incorrect.

Not so; if you look at what is said and to whom it was being said. Then, and only then, can you make the right interpretation.

If you say so, it is. The problem is that you're making a blanket objective statement and my position directly contradicts it. As such the objectivism and thusly the weight of your argument - vanishes.

So because somebody has a contrary opinion, that means that objectivity is false? Anyone can think what they want, but that doesn't mean that they're right and I'm wrong.

Your opinion is wrong for people who aren't you unless those people choose to agree with you.

Actually my opinion is wrong according to people who have a different opinion. Just because we have free choice doesn't mean that objectivity is to be thrown out.

Originally posted by jcarl
Not so; if you look at what is said and to whom it was being said. Then, and only then, can you make the right interpretation.

WHAT?????? Dude, you're on crack or something. On what basis do you think that "if you look at what is said and to whom it was being said. Then, and only then, can you make the right interpretation."? Argh, are you a kid or something? That sounds like something a kid might say. Pick a paragraph, any paragraph and ask two different people to interpret its meaning. Regardless of "what is said and to whom it was being said" you'll almost surely get two different answers.

Why do you think that there are tests for "reading comprehension"? ACK. DUDE!!!!!! How the hell do you think you can read the mind of something who's been dead for centuries???? Hell even someone who is alive????? THINK damnit!
Originally posted by jcarl

So because somebody has a contrary opinion, that means that objectivity is false? Anyone can think what they want, but that doesn't mean that they're right and I'm wrong.

No but in this case I'm wrong and you're wrong. What I'm saying is that you make the objective statement (which is really just your opinion) that "there's no way around it" and my contradiction of it and opinion of right and wrong that differes from yours regarding certain issues, proves that you are wrong in your attempt to assert objectivity (as you said "there's no way around it"). :p So there. LOL
Originally posted by jcarl

Actually my opinion is wrong according to people who have a different opinion. Just because we have free choice doesn't mean that objectivity is to be thrown out.

It does when you assert your subjetive take on reality to be an objective truth "there's no way around it". There is a way around it, be someone other than YOU, like me. So you are wrong again.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Pick a paragraph, any paragraph and ask two different people to interpret its meaning. Regardless of "what is said and to whom it was being said" you'll almost surely get two different answers.

That doesn't mean that their interpretations are in line with that of the author's purpose.

Why do you think that there are tests for "reading comprehension"? ACK. DUDE!!!!!!
A typical reading comprehension question would ask you what on the surface does it say(did Jane walk the dog? Why was she tired afterwards, etc.)

How the hell do you think you can read the mind of something who's been dead for centuries???? Hell even someone who is alive????? THINK damnit!

We don't have to read their minds if they put down what they are thinking.
Here's an example. In James it talks about faith which is without works is dead. Now Paul said on numerous occasions in Romans about how we are justified in faith and by faith we are saved. Sounds contradictory doesn't it? Indeed on a strictly comprehension test, if you asked if the statements contradicted each other, anyone certainly would agree that they do. However, Paul was writing to the Christians of Rome who believed they were saved as a result of following laws, which is not the way to heaven and to those who were not yet saved.
That being said, let's look at James. James is writing to those who are already born again Christians but who didn't show it by their daily lifestyle. He isn't talking about salvation; he's talking about serving others as proof of your faith.
TWO different audiences.

No but in this case I'm wrong and you're wrong. What I'm saying is that you make the objective statement (which is really just your opinion) that "there's no way around it" and my contradiction of it and opinion of right and wrong that differes from yours regarding certain issues, proves that you are wrong in your attempt to assert objectivity (as you said "there's no way around it"). :p So there. LOL

Objectivity exists, regardless of who has a contrary position.

assert your subjetive take on reality to be an objective truth "there's no way around it". There is a way around it, be someone other than YOU, like me. So you are wrong again.

Look, there must be a moral standard from something not of carnal minds. If there wasn't, if good and evil were relative, then no one ever does anything wrong, and thus no one can be punished. A direct corrolary of that is disinhibition and right there is the breakdown of society, because nobody can be held responsible for their actions. Is that the way your utopia operates?

Why is it that only wesmorris and myself are talking? It doesn't bother me, just curious.

I think I will get back involved with the conversation/debate.

Firstly, I completely agree with what wesmorris has said, and I am dumbfounded that you cannot look at what he is saying and comprehend what he is trying to get across to you. I am 17 years old and it makes perfect sense to me, but you seem to just be running around in circles jcarl.

Secondly, I want you to know that no matter the interpretation, there is always contradictions in the bible. The book constantly tells you to love you neighbor, and in essence to treat everyone the same. Later on, the people who took the Torah from the Jews and corrupted it's meaning (the christians) made a blanket contradictory statement that all homosexuals are bad and that homosexuality is a terrible thing. Can you tell me that in another context, those are not direct contradictions?