Slavery

[Immanuel Can]

Let's look at decadence separate from that.

To call something "decadent" is to say it's declining from some "better" state. That implies a value judgment, and a hierarchy of values (from "integrated" to "decayed.") From what secular scale is this value judgment derived?

Outsiders often saw them as lazy and contrasted them with the bustling industrious North.

Prove that a secularist is morally obligated to agree with the North on that.

They had a violent sense of honor,

Prove that violence is "bad," secularly.
or violence, or gambling and blood sports, or rape...or slavery.

What then is "decadence?" Secularism has no explanation for that, either. Whatever is, simply is. Secularism knows no "good" or "bad" of it, no "better" or "worse," except for instrumental purposes (such as saving labour or achieving sexual gratification) that are themselves in need of moral categorization -- a categorization that secularism simply cannot provide.

IC, you really have to stop this.

I don't think I do. The secularist is never able to answer. So the question keeps recurring, in every single instance in which the secularist invokes a value-laden concept. And it's the secularists who revive the question, because most aren't self-aware enough to ask it of themselves.

A few are. And credit to them for it. At least they're recognizing their own inherent problem. But they don't have a solution for it, except abandoning morality altogether.

This is not a failure on the part of the secularist

Actually, it certainly is. The problem would exist even if there were no Theists on the planet. Secularism would still have no grounds for moral judgment. And it's the most circumspect secularists who themselves have recognized it.

I assure you, secularists can make perfectly good arguments to base these things IN SECULAR TERMS.

Great! You've achieved something none of them ever have, apparently. Well done. I think you're probably going to get a Nobel Prize out of it.

So what is this wonderous argument you've discovered? Let's hear it. Why keep the world waiting any longer?

[Iwannaplato]

IC, you really have to stop this. The secularist cannot prove these things to your satisfaction because you consider these things as coming from God and the secularist isn't going to accept that starting point. This is not a failure on the part of the secularist but a failure on your part.

Also he somehow thinks his belief in his God gives him access to the objective, but has no idea if his subjective perceptions are correct here or his interpretations of the God are correct. This gets really problematic if he thinks he can objectively know that all of the Bible is correct. Let's presume the Christian God is real and did inspire the Bible. But what if the people back then, the writers - and the various committees who decided on inclusion and exclusion - did their best but could only 'hear' and consider interpretations that fit their biases, expectations and desires. They may have tried their best and managed to include things that were not so easy for them to include or were surprising, but still their biases messed up on occasion or 50% of the time.

No, IC knows for sure, based on his subjective experiences and subjective evaluations of the 'evidence of the truth' of all of the Bible.
Really he has the same problem he thinks only the secular person does.

[Immanuel Can]

he has the same problem he thinks only the secular person does.

Wow, that's a long way around to miss a very simple difference: the difference between coherent and incoherent.

For a religious person to espouse a morality is coherent: it fits in the context of his own worldview.

For a secular person to espouse any morality is incoherent: it doesn't fit the context of his own worldview.

We can argue over which worldview is right. But that won't make secular moralizing coherent. It will still be incoherent, because secularists don't believe in any objective moral truth, but assert moral truths. And the religious perspective could (for argument's sake) turn out to be wrong; but it will be coherently wrong, because it will still make a sensible connection with a religious person's ontological beliefs.

In short, some religious perspective COULD be true, because at least they're all coherent. But the secular moralist's perspective is guaranteed to be wrong, because it doesn't even agree with the most fundamental assumptions of secularism itself.

Or again, religious moral views are at war with secular views, but at peace with religious assumptions. But secular moral views are at war with both religious views and its own sponsoring worldviews, such as Materialism, Pragmatism, Physicalism, Naturalism, Nihilism, etc.

See it yet?

[MikeNovack]

Wow, that's a long way around to miss a very simple difference: the difference between coherent and incoherent.

For a religious person to espouse a morality is coherent: it fits in the context of his own worldview.

For a secular person to espouse any morality is incoherent: it doesn't fit the context of his own worldview.

We can argue over which worldview is right. But that won't make secular moralizing coherent.
Or again, religious moral views are at war with secular views, but at peace with religious assumptions. But secular moral views are at war with both religious views and its own sponsoring worldviews, such as Materialism, Pragmatism, Physicalism, Naturalism, Nihilism, etc.

See it yet?

No, YOU "don't see it".

You are USING (the premise) "morality is coherent only in some religious view". And you have got to be kidding me if you tell me you believe there is much if any agreement between religious views.

The secular person doesn't think YOUR views are sensible/coherent. Unlikely to care in the least what YOU think.

[Immanuel Can]

Wow, that's a long way around to miss a very simple difference: the difference between coherent and incoherent.

For a religious person to espouse a morality is coherent: it fits in the context of his own worldview.

For a secular person to espouse any morality is incoherent: it doesn't fit the context of his own worldview.

We can argue over which worldview is right. But that won't make secular moralizing coherent.
Or again, religious moral views are at war with secular views, but at peace with religious assumptions. But secular moral views are at war with both religious views and its own sponsoring worldviews, such as Materialism, Pragmatism, Physicalism, Naturalism, Nihilism, etc.

See it yet?

No, YOU "don't see it".

You are USING (the premise) "morality is coherent only in some religious view".

No, I'm showing why it's true.

I'm not asking you to believe; I'm asking you to recognize simple logic. And the decisive test, I have offered to you several times: just name one moral precept obligatory for all secularists.

So far, I'm not hearing one...from anybody...and I've put this test to many others, both here and elsewhere.

Secularism simply cannot do it. Ever.

And you have got to be kidding me if you tell me you believe there is much if any agreement between religious views.

I never said, or suggested, any such thing.

What I pointed out is that the morality of a particular religion can agree with that particular religion's own worldview.

And, by contrast, no secular moral precept agrees with any secular worldview.

The secular person doesn't think YOUR views are sensible/coherent. Unlikely to care in the least what YOU think.

Then the secular person of whom you are speaking must not care about logic. For logic, straightforward, unadulterated, impartial, non-ideological logic, is all he would need to realize it as truth.

[accelafine]

So fed up with Americans virtue-signalling about slavery. Your cotton-pickin industry has nothing to do with the rest of the planet. Spare the rest of us your phony 'guilt' and pearl-clutching. Those people are all dead.

[Iwannaplato]

Oh, blimmin' heck, I missed whatever accelafine had to say there.

[accelafine]

Oh, blimmin' heck, I missed whatever accelafine had to say there.

[DELETED]

[Wizard22]

Outsiders often saw them as lazy and contrasted them with the bustling industrious North.

Prove that a secularist is morally obligated to agree with the North on that.

IWP is so lost in his own arguments... he doesn't even understand where his (secular) moral position comes from, and then turns around and denies identifying as 'Secular Humanist'.

Secularists need to play logical obstacle course and hula-hooping to get around the fact that Christianity is the vast brunt of European morality for over 2000 years now. They're ashamed of it, ashamed of the Civilizations they built and participated in. Worse, they have selective-memories. They yearn to escape the 'black and white' morals and traditions of Western Civilization. Their motivations for doing so are countless really.

[Iwannaplato]

IWP is so lost in his own arguments... he doesn't even understand where his (secular) moral position comes from

Where the facile meets the lazy: Wizard's posts. Yeah, confuse labeling for reasoning.

, and then turns around and denies identifying as 'Secular Humanist'.

Yup, since I am neither. I'm a theist.
What are you?

[Wizard22]

I'm Agnostic but I clearly see and understand how Secular, Liberal, Humanist moral values come directly from Jesus Christ's offer of universal salvation and forgiveness, hence, all Humans are made 'Equal' in the Eyes of the LORD.

No Christianity, No Equality, No Liberalism, No Universal Human Morality

The separation from Postmodernity and Christianity though, is that Secularists conveniently forget (or deny) that, without Christ, there is no reason or compelling argument from them that "humans" (whatever that means) ought to be treated the same way. And it's often absurd to presume they should. Why should a Criminal be treated equally as an Innocent? Why male same as female? Why young same as old? Ridiculous nonsense. Secularists (aka. Liberals) do not have a Universal Morality, except what the State enforces. Without the State, they'll rapidly fall into Communist Dictatorship mode, and justify the murder of everybody around them.

Liberals have no real Ethos underneath them, only Conservatives do (through Traditionalism).

[Iwannaplato]

I'm Agnostic

Which makes you secular and you would think that IC is epistemologically confused. That he can't really know there is a god. (You would think I am confused also.)

but I clearly see and understand how Secular, Liberal, Humanist moral values come directly from Jesus Christ's offer of universal salvation and forgiveness, hence, all Humans are made 'Equal' in the Eyes of the LORD.

So, you think Jesus' teaching are problematic? that'd be a great discussion with IC to read.

You're a right wing secular humanist, one with traditional values.

Right wing and traditionalist should be non-controversial.
Secular - you ain't religious and even seem to blame Jesus (while admiring Christianity in some ways) for the faults of your enemies.
Humanist - a rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

Unless you think divine and supernatural matters are of prime importance, guess what you're secular.

So, you can try to find common ground with IC in hating me with lazy ass posts like the previous one and the end of this one, but it's a really hollow alliance.

And I love how I am supposedly stupid for repudiating Christianities morals when you blame Jesus for today's Left. You think Christianity's morals weren't centered on Jesus. That'll be news to Christians.

[Wizard22]

Which makes you secular and you would think that IC is epistemologically confused. That he can't really know there is a god. (You would think I am confused also.)

That depends on how God is defined.

So, you think Jesus' teaching are problematic?

For you and your arguments, yes.

You're a right wing secular humanist, one with traditional values.

I'm not a Secularist. I'm against Protestantism and 10,000 different sects of "Christianity". Furthermore I'm against Liberals that abuse their foundation of morals from Christianity. You can't have it both ways. You either honor Tradition, or you cannot presume moral superiority, or even moral significance. However, most Liberals (ie. Leftists) get their sense of morality from Marxism directly, these days.

Right wing and traditionalist should be non-controversial.
Secular - you ain't religious and even seem to blame Jesus (while admiring Christianity in some ways) for the faults of your enemies.

I'm not blaming Christ. I'm blaming the ones who abuse His Teachings. I'm further blaming those who openly betray Him, in His name.

Humanist - a rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

Unless you think divine and supernatural matters are of prime importance, guess what you're secular.

Divine matters are of prime importance. Guess I'm not secular then.

you blame Jesus for today's Left.

No I don't--and I'm wondering how you're creating these Straw Man fallacies. It's interesting to me...

[Iwannaplato]

That depends on how God is defined.

Do you mean there is a God you believe in but that God has a specific definition?
Of if you mean IC - well, he believes Jesus was God on Earth, there is a Divine Father God etc.

So, you think Jesus' teaching are problematic?

For you and your arguments, yes.

See, this is where the BS comes in. You said that the Liberal values you hate come from Jesus. This puts you at odd with the NT and pretty much any version of Christianity.

I'm not a Secularist. I'm against Protestantism and 10,000 different sects of "Christianity".

Many secularists would agree with you. So?

Furthermore I'm against Liberals that abuse their foundation of morals from Christianity.

A conservative secularist can be against liberals.

You can't have it both ways. You either honor Tradition, or you cannot presume moral superiority, or even moral significance. However, most Liberals (ie. Leftists) get their sense of morality from Marxism directly, these days.

You're stating that has NOTHING to do with whether you are secular or not. Nothing you said means you are not secular. But it is as if you showed you weren't. I can't even tell if you understand the term.

Right wing and traditionalist should be non-controversial.
Secular - you ain't religious and even seem to blame Jesus (while admiring Christianity in some ways) for the faults of your enemies.

I'm not blaming Christ. I'm blaming the ones who abuse His Teachings. I'm further blaming those who openly betray Him, in His name.

OK you wrote the following and I quoted it:

but I clearly see and understand how Secular, Liberal, Humanist moral values come directly from Jesus Christ's offer of universal salvation and forgiveness, hence, all Humans are made 'Equal' in the Eyes of the LORD.

You make no sense of perhaps you spend no time noticing what you are typing.

Humanist - a rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

Unless you think divine and supernatural matters are of prime importance, guess what you're secular.

Divine matters are of prime importance.

Great, tell me what Divine matters you consider important. You, the agnostic. And you don't speak about them. You talk about the importance of Chritianity, but this is always about morals. Not God or the Divine. And you as an agnostic manage to have morals you respect, so you don't need belief in God to have these and I see nowhere that you even believe in the Divine. Perhaps you mean belief in the Divine matters, because other people need that to be moral. Is that what you mean?

you blame Jesus for today's Left.

No I don't--and I'm wondering how you're creating these Straw Man fallacies. It's interesting to me...
[/quote]

I quoted you directly. I'll do it a third time....

but I clearly see and understand how Secular, Liberal, Humanist moral values come directly from Jesus Christ's offer of universal salvation and forgiveness, hence, all Humans are made 'Equal' in the Eyes of the LORD.

You deny being a secular person then to justify it you describe beliefs that fit perfectly with secularism.
You wonder where I get ideas, despite my quoting you directly. Maybe you didn't mean what you wrote, but don't blame me and then it would have been rational and mature to explain what you actually meant.

[Wizard22]

Do you mean there is a God you believe in but that God has a specific definition?

Many people define God in many ways. But I don't recognize those without the Authority to speak of God. Most do not have that Authority. Thus I must rely on my own Reason, primarily, to find an Authority or Representation of God.

Of if you mean IC - well, he believes Jesus was God on Earth, there is a Divine Father God etc.

He can speak for himself, thank you.

See, this is where the BS comes in. You said that the Liberal values you hate come from Jesus. This puts you at odd with the NT and pretty much any version of Christianity.

I'm pretty sure Christ wouldn't accept LGBTQMAP+ or most of the other perversions of the Postmodern Liberal Left and Secularists....

Liberalism means nothing without Repentance, a cost to moral errors, mistakes, and misinterpretations. Somebody must pay for Costs. Liberals try to shift the blame onto their political enemies, rather than bear the brunt of their own mistakes, themselves.

Great, tell me what Divine matters you consider important. You, the agnostic. And you don't speak about them. You talk about the importance of Chritianity, but this is always about morals. Not God or the Divine. And you as an agnostic manage to have morals you respect, so you don't need belief in God to have these and I see nowhere that you even believe in the Divine. Perhaps you mean belief in the Divine matters, because other people need that to be moral. Is that what you mean?

I'm not getting into that in this thread. You're already veering too far off-topic and course of conversation.

You deny being a secular person then to justify it you describe beliefs that fit perfectly with secularism.
You wonder where I get ideas, despite my quoting you directly. Maybe you didn't mean what you wrote, but don't blame me and then it would have been rational and mature to explain what you actually meant.

I don't believe Secular morals, or Christian Protestantism in general, is valid. So, no, I'm not a Secularist.