Theism and Moral Realism are separate concepts

[Immanuel Can]

Mannie,

So LJWB gets to shoot...

...or rape or slave or rob or defraud...

...as many people has he has power to(.) And really, nobody has any warrant to say anything about that.

Even so, the amoralists still get their panties in a twist. Like the Yorkshireman: they'll get all a'tizzy over the bad act but always stop short of sayin' why the bad act is bad or why -- if morality is just a matter of personal or collective opinion -- anybody ought give a sparrow's fart for their twisted undies.

Yes, that's the problem: twisted knickers don't constitute a moral issue. And "I don't like that" doesn't amount to a reason why killing people is actually wrong...it's just a bunch of twisted knickers.

P.S. -- "200 of us, living in a shoebox, in the middle of the road..."

[Alexiev]

I'm not. I'm interpreting in context. You're trying to interpret with no context at all. This is really basic exegesis, but clearly, you've never even heard about that before.

And trust me; you don't want get into the denominations, not unless you really want to lose your way and be baffled. It's not an easy game for dilettantes and dabblers. Because then, we've got to talk precise theological differences, and it's clear you don't even have the basic knowledge to follow somebody through a discussion like that. You don't even know the difference between the two testaments -- a distinction recognized by every denomination, or the difference between ecclesiastical fiat and Scriptural warrant, which is the point the three denominations you're listing depart over. So how are we going to talk about The Filioque Distinction of the Orthodox-Catholic divide, or the Five Solas of the Catholic-Protestant controversy, when you can't seem even to master basic context yet?

To be fair, you may, one day...if you do some reading. But your questions right now show that that day is manifestly not today. At the moment, I don't think you can even grasp that discussion, because even those most basic distinctions seem to elude you.

But what you could do is at least see what Karl Marx said about Karl Marx...and Satan, since you, yourself raised that issue.

Since I'm neither religious nor Marxist, I'll grant I'm no expert. Neither are you. Anyone who thinks any creed but his own is a "lie" is a bigot, a conceited bufoon, and an a-hole. Your "objective" morality is objective only due to your false pride, which was the sin of Lucifer.

Of course if you read Paradise Lost, you might find Lucifer s nobler and more attractive figure than the Jesus of that great poem, if your close minded bigotry would allow you to admit it.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not. I'm interpreting in context. You're trying to interpret with no context at all. This is really basic exegesis, but clearly, you've never even heard about that before.

And trust me; you don't want get into the denominations, not unless you really want to lose your way and be baffled. It's not an easy game for dilettantes and dabblers. Because then, we've got to talk precise theological differences, and it's clear you don't even have the basic knowledge to follow somebody through a discussion like that. You don't even know the difference between the two testaments -- a distinction recognized by every denomination, or the difference between ecclesiastical fiat and Scriptural warrant, which is the point the three denominations you're listing depart over. So how are we going to talk about The Filioque Distinction of the Orthodox-Catholic divide, or the Five Solas of the Catholic-Protestant controversy, when you can't seem even to master basic context yet?

To be fair, you may, one day...if you do some reading. But your questions right now show that that day is manifestly not today. At the moment, I don't think you can even grasp that discussion, because even those most basic distinctions seem to elude you.

But what you could do is at least see what Karl Marx said about Karl Marx...and Satan, since you, yourself raised that issue.

Since I'm neither religious nor Marxist, I'll grant I'm no expert. Neither are you.

Actually...you wouldn't know that. And actually...

Anyone who thinks any creed but his own is a "lie" is a bigot,

That's actually quite a comical thing to say. Everybody always believes what he thinks is true. There's no reason to believe anything else. And since ideologies are mutually contradictory, there's literally a 0% chance that they're all right. So that means you're going to have to call something a "lie," or else be so gullible that you have no idea where the truth is at all. Your pick.

Of course if you read Paradise Lost,...

You really, really have to stop trying to test me on things about which you can't possibly keep up with me. You should pick something you know about...and since that isn't, by your own admission, Marx, theology and now, as is evident, Milton, maybe you'd better pick something else.

[Alexiev]

That's actually quite a comical thing to say. Everybody always believes what he thinks is true. There's no reason to believe anything else. And since ideologies are mutually contradictory, there's literally a 0% chance that they're all right. So that means you're going to have to call something a "lie," or else be so gullible that you have no idea where the truth is at all. Your pick.

Of course if you read Paradise Lost,...

You really, really have to stop trying to test me on things about which you can't possibly keep up with me. You should pick something you know about...and since that isn't, by your own admission, Marx, theology and now, as is evident, Milton, maybe you'd better pick something else.

In Paradise Lost, Jesus is a mamby pamby milksop; Lucifer is at least courageous.

Your notion that anything that is incorrect is a "lie" is both asinine and insulting. True to form. I suppose.

Here's noted critic Harold Bloom on Paradise List: "Satan is the focus of Paradise Lost. Christ is a poetic disaster....Satan has all of Milton's best qualities in him. The only difference is that Satan believes in the duality of body and spirit."

[Immanuel Can]

That's actually quite a comical thing to say. Everybody always believes what he thinks is true. There's no reason to believe anything else. And since ideologies are mutually contradictory, there's literally a 0% chance that they're all right. So that means you're going to have to call something a "lie," or else be so gullible that you have no idea where the truth is at all. Your pick.

Of course if you read Paradise Lost,...

You really, really have to stop trying to test me on things about which you can't possibly keep up with me. You should pick something you know about...and since that isn't, by your own admission, Marx, theology and now, as is evident, Milton, maybe you'd better pick something else.

In Paradise Lost,...

Milton isn't Scripture, my friend. He's a fiction-writer, writing epic poetry in the 17th Century. He's not a theologian, and nobody needs to answer for his mistakes. I would think you would know that... but apparently, you still want me to point that out.

Look, I'm trying not to make you wrong in absolutely every message, but you're kind of making it impossible.

Your notion that anything that is incorrect is a "lie" is both asinine and insulting.

Not quite what I said, but that won't stop you, apparently. If you want to defend untruths, and even deliberate ones, I suppose you can. Just don't expect to be believed.

[Alexiev]

Not quite what I said, but that won't stop you, apparently. If you want to defend untruths, and even deliberate ones, I suppose you can. Just don't expect to be believed.

I support the notion that people (even you) can espouse their beliefs without being told those beliefs are "lies". I further support the notion that you are not the arbiter of what is true or untrue. Therefore, calling the beliefs of others "lies" is rude, obnoxious, juvenile, and incorrect.

Thanks for informing me that Paradise Lost is not "scripture". Who was it that decided what WAS "scripture" again? The Orthodox Church, was it not?

[Immanuel Can]

Not quite what I said, but that won't stop you, apparently. If you want to defend untruths, and even deliberate ones, I suppose you can. Just don't expect to be believed.

I support the notion that people (even you) can espouse their beliefs without being told those beliefs are "lies".

They can. They can believe lies, and not be told they're lies. That certainly happens. But it's not a good thing when somebody cares more about keeping up the phony image of "being tolerant," when all the while, the price is allowing people to believe lies about important things. That's just not what good people ought to do. Good people care more about the truth than about appearances, and they give others the respect of telling them the truth.

I further support the notion that you are not the arbiter of what is true or untrue.

And I never said I was, so that is fine too. Reality is the arbiter of what's true. If one insists on believing untrue things, even for the sake of being polite, then reality will eventually make one pay the price for living under delusions. That's how it works.

Therefore, calling the beliefs of others "lies" is rude, obnoxious, juvenile, and incorrect.

Using shaming language is a tactic that I've noticed is highly favoured by little girls. It really doesn't work with adults. Besides, are you calling my belief a "lie"? If you're not, then what are you complaining about? If you are, then you're afoul of your own rule.

I prefer to respect people, and to believe they have a right to hear the truth. I'm not sure exactly what you're advocating...

Thanks for informing me that Paradise Lost is not "scripture".

You're welcome. I can't imagine how you didn't know that already. Most people do.

[Harbal]

Mannie,

So LJWB gets to shoot...

...or rape or slave or rob or defraud...

...as many people has he has power to(.) And really, nobody has any warrant to say anything about that.

Even so, the amoralists still get their panties in a twist. Like the Yorkshireman: they'll get all a'tizzy over the bad act but always stop short of sayin' why the bad act is bad or why -- if morality is just a matter of personal or collective opinion -- anybody ought give a sparrow's fart for their twisted undies.

Yes, that's the problem: twisted knickers don't constitute a moral issue. And "I don't like that" doesn't amount to a reason why killing people is actually wrong...it's just a bunch of twisted knickers.

P.S. -- "200 of us, living in a shoebox, in the middle of the road..."

But you two think that killing people is wrong for completely different reasons, which means that at least one of you is basing his view on his own opinion, rather than some objective truth. When allies are in short supply, it's amazing what differences some people are prepared to overlook.

[henry quirk]

Harbal,

you two think that killing people is wrong for completely different reasons

Really? I think if you actually knew what our positions, our reasons, were you would find far more commonality than difference.

Tell me: what are our positions? Can you say?

my apologies for not properly quoting: I can barely stayed signed in (when I can sign in) and the quote function, for me, is unusable

[Immanuel Can]

Mannie,



...or rape or slave or rob or defraud...



Even so, the amoralists still get their panties in a twist. Like the Yorkshireman: they'll get all a'tizzy over the bad act but always stop short of sayin' why the bad act is bad or why -- if morality is just a matter of personal or collective opinion -- anybody ought give a sparrow's fart for their twisted undies.

Yes, that's the problem: twisted knickers don't constitute a moral issue. And "I don't like that" doesn't amount to a reason why killing people is actually wrong...it's just a bunch of twisted knickers.

P.S. -- "200 of us, living in a shoebox, in the middle of the road..."

But you two think that killing people is wrong for completely different reasons...

"Completely"? Maybe not so "complete."

But either way, the important thing is this: that Subjectivism won't become functional, no matter how many critiques somebody raises of other possible views. It's just a moral gelding. So whatever other route you need to go in order to have any ability to use the word "moral" rationally, Subjectivism won't work.

Either morality can be asserted on SOME objective basis, or it cannot be talked about at all. It's not real.

[Harbal]

Harbal,

you two think that killing people is wrong for completely different reasons

Really? I think if you actually knew what our positions, our reasons, were you would find far more commonality than difference.

Tell me: what are our positions? Can you say?

IC thinks that God owns our lives, and that God's word is the source of morality. You, from what I can gather, think that we own our own lives and have "natural rights" in respect of that ownership. From whence, exactly, come those rights, you seem unable to say, other than to insist it is somehow self evident that we do have them. If I have misinterpreted you, please correct me.

my apologies for not properly quoting: I can barely stayed signed in (when I can sign in) and the quote function, for me, is unusable

That's okay.

[Harbal]

Yes, that's the problem: twisted knickers don't constitute a moral issue. And "I don't like that" doesn't amount to a reason why killing people is actually wrong...it's just a bunch of twisted knickers.

P.S. -- "200 of us, living in a shoebox, in the middle of the road..."

But you two think that killing people is wrong for completely different reasons...

"Completely"? Maybe not so "complete."

But either way, the important thing is this: that Subjectivism won't become functional, no matter how many critiques somebody raises of other possible views. It's just a moral gelding. So whatever other route you need to go in order to have any ability to use the word "moral" rationally, Subjectivism won't work.

Either morality can be asserted on SOME objective basis, or it cannot be talked about at all. It's not real.

If you think henry's feeling that we have natural rights isn't a position of subjectivity, please explain why not.

[Immanuel Can]

But you two think that killing people is wrong for completely different reasons...

"Completely"? Maybe not so "complete."

But either way, the important thing is this: that Subjectivism won't become functional, no matter how many critiques somebody raises of other possible views. It's just a moral gelding. So whatever other route you need to go in order to have any ability to use the word "moral" rationally, Subjectivism won't work.

Either morality can be asserted on SOME objective basis, or it cannot be talked about at all. It's not real.

If you think henry's feeling that we have natural rights isn't a position of subjectivity, please explain why not.

The assumption that things called "natural rights" exist is premised on Theism. No such case at all can be made from Subjectivism. Therefore, presuppositionally, the natural rights position is Theistic, even when it is not explicitly so. And Henry, as a Deist, is, of course, rationally capable of believing in such things as "natural rights."

Since he is not being irrational, and thus is not asserting a postion that defeats itself, I cannot possibly object to his view on the basis upon which I point out the profound faults in Subjectivism.

[Harbal]

"Completely"? Maybe not so "complete."

But either way, the important thing is this: that Subjectivism won't become functional, no matter how many critiques somebody raises of other possible views. It's just a moral gelding. So whatever other route you need to go in order to have any ability to use the word "moral" rationally, Subjectivism won't work.

Either morality can be asserted on SOME objective basis, or it cannot be talked about at all. It's not real.

If you think henry's feeling that we have natural rights isn't a position of subjectivity, please explain why not.

The assumption that things called "natural rights" exist is premised on Theism.

So henry believes our natural rights come from whatever particular gods he believes in, is that what you are saying?

No such case at all can be made from Subjectivism. Therefore, presuppositionally, the natural rights position is Theistic, even when it is not explicitly so. And Henry, as a Deist, is, of course, rationally capable of believing in such things as "natural rights."

I am rationally capable of believing that natural rights come from the collective human concepts of fairness and justice, which do actually exist within most human beings. That isn't exactly how I look at it, but I imagine many of those who you would call "subjectivists" do, and that seems no less rational than henry's position.

Since he is not being irrational

You may well say he is not being irrational, as if you have established the point, but you have established no such thing.

and thus is not asserting a postion that defeats itself

I have never asserted a position that defeats itself, either. All your objections to my "assertions" have been based on a set of arbitrary criteria that you have dreamed up yourself.

[Alexiev]

In his pride and contempt for those who disagree with him, IC approximately Milton's Lucifer. For those unfamiliar with Paradise Lost, Lucifer rebels because God chooses Jesus to lead His armies. "Why?" wonders Lucifer. "Why choose a puny human, when I am the right choice?"

The rebellion is noble, because the weak warring against the strong is noble. But Lucfer is also a self-absorbed whiner (although he doesn't whine about the Woke, like some on these boards). Like many in the snti-woke crowd, Lucifer sees himself as picked upon, overlooked, and discriminated against.

In Milton's epic, Satan's rebellion is compared to Adam and Eve s fall. When Eve eats the apple, Adam sees two choices: love her and follow her into expulsion and death, or obey God. Like Lucifer s, his choice is noble and romantic, although some Chrustian critics insist that he could have abstained, snd persuaded Eve to repent, leading to her forgiveness.

Milton was a republican who supported Cromwell and narrowly escaped execution when the kingship was restored. The poem (among other things) explores the distinction between de jure and de facto rule. Does God rule because He is all powerful, or because He is righteous?

I could go on, but I'm out of town, typing on my phone.