It's the consequences...Dammit!

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Sorry, but my 'moral compass' is just fine, And apathy has no place in my life. Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and conservatives...they're merely opposite sides of the same debased coin.

How trite and apathetic. How like a lib.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Your arguments are rooted in faith...There is no objective, independently and repeatably verifiable evidence to support them.

Yeah. Ok. Prophecy is no independently and repeatedly verifiable evidence.

That is just plain idiotic.

The deductive reasoning used to arrive at your conclusions, while leading to a formally valid conclusion, can be either true or false, and thus gives us no genuinely useful conclusions.

Only to people who claim "It depends on what your definition of "is" is". -And then ignore reality in favor of their own definitions. So which is it? Are my conclusions leading to a valid conclusion or aren't they?

You are so blinded by your own moral relativism, you cannot believe in any absolutes which makes thinking logically impossible.

They fall within the realm of mere speculation, at best, and flights of fancy at worst.

Go back to your pablum.

Spoken like a true blind socialist with nothing more important than his own ego.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Your arguments are rooted in faith...There is no objective, independently and repeatably verifiable evidence to support them. The deductive reasoning used to arrive at your conclusions, while leading to a formally valid conclusion, can be either true or false, and thus gives us no genuinely useful conclusions. They fall within the realm of mere speculation, at best, and flights of fancy at worst.

Go back to your pablum.

Sorry, Bully, but you are just plain wrong here.

The life, crucifixion, and subsequent resurrection of Jesus Christ was proclaimed orally by the eyewitnesses to the events, which led to the rise and establishment of Christianity in the first place. About 30-60 years later, four individuals wrote detailed accounts of those events: Matthew and John, who were eyewitnesses and wrote first person accounts; Mark, a contemporary of Peter, the leader of the newborn church and one of Jesus's three closest companions; and Luke, a historian who wrote the history both of Jesus's life and the first years of the church. Those four indepenent works have come to us 2000 years later for all intents intact.

You claim that this is not "independently verifiable," but no history can be. It's like asking someone to prove that Alexander the Great lived. The only reason we know it happened is because of history passed dwon from 2400 years ago. No one today can give first-person proof, because no one today was alive then.

As far as your dismissal of deductive reasoning, you would have to show where NewGuy used a false assumption or fact if you wanted to actually prove him wrong. But, as usual, you dismiss his statements out of hand because they don't fit into your worldview.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Yeah. Ok. Prophecy is no independently and repeatedly verifiable evidence.

That is just plain idiotic.

I don't know what's idiotic about it...It's true.

Only to people who claim "It depends on what your definition of "is" is". -And then ignore reality in favor of their own definitions. So which is it? Are my conclusions leading to a valid conclusion or aren't they?

Simply because a conclusion is logically valid does not make it true, or useful.

You are so blinded by your own moral relativism, you cannot believe in any absolutes which makes thinking logically impossible.

Where is the moral relativism in rooting morality in the consequences of that morality to this human life in this world? Those consequences are an objective measure as to the morality of any action. If it causes harm to oneself, others, or both, it is not to be done. How do you arrive at moral relativism from such an objective standard? You can't...And you don't.

Spoken like a true blind socialist with nothing more important than his own ego.

Socialism is the retarded bastard child of Karl Marx and Joseph Engels.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Sorry, Bully, but you are just plain wrong here.

The life, crucifixion, and subsequent resurrection of Jesus Christ was proclaimed orally by the eyewitnesses to the events, which led to the rise and establishment of Christianity in the first place. About 30-60 years later, four individuals wrote detailed accounts of those events: Matthew and John, who were eyewitnesses and wrote first person accounts; Mark, a contemporary of Peter, the leader of the newborn church and one of Jesus's three closest companions; and Luke, a historian who wrote the history both of Jesus's life and the first years of the church. Those four indepenent works have come to us 2000 years later for all intents intact.

And, like all stories of martyrs and heroes...The feats grow with the telling. We must ask ourselves...Some of the Gnostic texts and translations from the Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that he didn't die, but rather lived on...Some interesting questions.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
I don't know what's idiotic about it...It's true.





Simply because a conclusion is logically valid does not make it true, or useful.



Where is the moral relativism in rooting morality in the consequences of that morality to this human life in this world? Those consequences are an objective measure as to the morality of any action. If it causes harm to oneself, others, or both, it is not to be done. How do you arrive at moral relativism from such an objective standard? You cna't...And you don't.




Socialism is the retarded bastard child of Karl Marx and Joseph Engels.

And, like all stories of martyrs and heroes...The feats grow with the telling.

Christ wasn't crucified because he was religious...He was crucified because he was a threat to the power structure.

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Yeah. Ok. Prophecy is no independently and repeatedly verifiable evidence.

That is just plain idiotic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bully:
I don't know what's idiotic about it...It's true.

If prophecy is no evidence, you really need help.

Simply because a conclusion is logically valid does not make it true, or useful.

Again, not very smart to say.

Where is the moral relativism in rooting morality in the consequences of that morality to this human life in this world?

DUH. Majority rules ISN'T moral relativism?

and.......we have the same laws and morals today as we did 1000 years ago? And everyone has the same morals in the state of California?

Dumb.

Those consequences are an objective measure as to the morality of any action. If it causes harm to oneself, others, or both, it is not to be done. How do you arrive at moral relativism from such an objective standard? You can't...And you don't.

Even if such consequences are immediately not observed?

You CANT arrive at it from an objective standard. You have to realize people DONT MAKE THE RULES.

You not only just invalidated your own argument, again, but you also proved the need for an independent RULE MAKER, (God), and justified that only he can BE the true and just rulemaker. -Which of course, invalidates everything else you believe.

And, like all stories of martyrs and heroes...The feats grow with the telling. We must ask ourselves...Some of the Gnostic texts and translations from the Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that he didn't die, but rather lived on...Some interesting questions.

1. The Bible is timeless. Try reading it. Original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts have not changed. Try talking about something you know something about.

2. Not all of the scrolls have proven to be in allignment with Biblical text, and some have been proven frauds by other methods of dating and such.

If you would research, you would know.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?

Brilliant, concise argument.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Brilliant, concise argument.

You insult me, I insult you right back.

We don't need to worry about all of the metaphysical claptrap surrounding the idea of rewards and punishments in some mythical afterlife.

You started this kid's game, not me.

 

[Bullypulpit]

If prophecy is no evidence, you really need help.

Umm...Yeah, sorry, but prophecy is evidence of nothing.

DUH. Majority rules ISN'T moral relativism?

and.......we have the same laws and morals today as we did 1000 years ago? And everyone has the same morals in the state of California?

Dumb.

When did we get off an a tangent about "Majority Rules". That's never even been referred to until you came up with it as a non sequitur.

Even if such consequences are immediately not observed?

You CANT arrive at it from an objective standard. You have to realize people DONT MAKE THE RULES.

You not only just invalidated your own argument, again, but you also proved the need for an independent RULE MAKER, (God), and justified that only he can BE the true and just rulemaker. -Which of course, invalidates everything else you believe.

SORRY!...People do make the rules. They attribute them to some sort of divine entity to absolve themselves of responsibility for theier consequences.

1. The Bible is timeless. Try reading it. Original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts have not changed. Try talking about something you know something about.

2. Not all of the scrolls have proven to be in allignment with Biblical text, and some have been proven frauds by other methods of dating and such.

If you would research, you would know.

Everything changes with translation, and that all of the apocrypha are not 'in alignment' proves nothing but a diffence of opinion amonst the writers. Your argument, once again, falls flat upon its face.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
You insult me, I insult you right back.

Umm...Looking back through the posts, I don't believe that I insulted you.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
And, like all stories of martyrs and heroes...The feats grow with the telling. We must ask ourselves...Some of the Gnostic texts and translations from the Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that he didn't die, but rather lived on...Some interesting questions.

It would be one thing for Matthew, John, Peter, and the other early Christians to exagerrate a feat. It would be something totally different to proclaim that someone who was publicly executed has come to life again. It would be easily refuted by their contemporaries, if it were false.
And yes, many Gnostic gospels contained alternate stories, anecdotes, etc. These were rejected by the Church because they were not factually correct.
Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain no references to Jesus, as they are a partial copy of the Jewish scriptures written around 200-100 B.C.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Umm...Yeah, sorry, but prophecy is evidence of nothing.

Your quotes don't get any smarter than that, do they?

When did we get off an a tangent about "Majority Rules". That's never even been referred to until you came up with it as a non sequitur.

Those are YOUR words, not mine. You forgot your own point again.

SORRY!...People do make the rules. They attribute them to some sort of divine entity to absolve themselves of responsibility for theier consequences.

You can't even remember your own point more than 2 posts to adress the topic.

Everything changes with translation, and that all of the apocrypha are not 'in alignment' proves nothing but a diffence of opinion amonst the writers. Your argument, once again, falls flat upon its face.

1. There IS no translation in original Greek and Hebrew.
2. There IS NO difference in "opinion" in original texts.
3. I have no argument, the text speaks for its self
4.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Umm...Looking back through the posts, I don't believe that I insulted you.

That is because in looking back you didn't read my QUOTE IN THE POST which was YOUR OPENING POST FOR THE THREAD.

Selective reading.....figures.

 

[Bern80]

isn't morality fun?

seriously though, i do believe there are some things that are right or wrong regardless of what the majority of a society says. I don't believe in a rule maker however.

So how do i know what is right and wrong? I have no idea. I just know.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Where is the moral relativism in rooting morality in the consequences of that morality to this human life in this world?

Doing so presupposes that man is inherently moral. Surely you don't believe that!?

 

[Avatar4321]

Going to make some comments.

You dont have to have belief in an afterlife to be moral, but its far less likely. If you have no reason to believe when you die you are gone you have no reason to be moral. Because only this life matters. It doesnt matter if seek money and power at the cost of the truth and even the lives of other people. Lie alittle here. dig a pit for someone there. It doesnt matter as long as in this life you are more confortable. its easier to be cruel in life if you have no reason to believe you are going to be accountable. If nothing you does matters, what does it matter?

But there is a life after death. And a Judgement. Where we will be judged according to what we have become. If we have been evil we will reap evil in the world to come and if we have been good we will reap good in the world to come.

Im willing to make a bet that you will find morality more often where there are people who believe their actions have consequences that will either bless or curse them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Even according to Bully's "affect on humanity in this world" criteria, conservatism, capitalism, and free trade have proven proven superior. Come on, Bully, question this; I dare you.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

http://www.celebratecapitalism.org/bernsteindeclaration/english/

The Bernstein Declaration
On the Principles and Possibilities of Capitalism

Capitalism is the only system based on the recognition that each individual owns his life. Capitalism is the only social system in which individuals are free to pursue their rational self-interest, to own property and to profit from their actions. It entrenches individual rights, limited Constitutional government, and political/intellectual/economic freedom.
The more capitalist a culture - the greater its freedom and prosperity
That is the verdict of history. In just two short centuries, capitalism has lifted mes living standards to heights undreamed of in the pre-capitalist era. Often forgotten today is that Western Europe, prior to the capitalist revolution of the late Eighteenth Century, suffering under the political yoke of the feudal aristocracy, was the equivalent of a Third World country - wracked by famine, recurrent plague, and the most unspeakable poverty. But no longer.
When was the last time a famine occurred in any capitalist nation - whether in Western Europe, North America or Asia? The United States has never suffered a famine in its history. Capitalism has created abundance unmatched in human history, enabling hundreds of millions to live better today than all the kings of yesterday.
Less capitalism means more human misery
But the non capitalist nations - the fascist, socialist, military or theocratic dictatorships - enslave their own citizens and subsist in abysmal squalor. In many African countries the living standard is one or two hundred dollars per year. In North Korea, they starve to death by the tens of thousands. In Cuba, they drown trying to swim to freedom in the United States. Millions of oppressed people around the globe yearn to emigrate to the Free World. But who in the capitalist nations seeks to emigrate to Cambodia?
What makes capitaliss astounding success possible?
What principles explain the fact that mankins greatest inventions and works of art - his most life-giving material and spiritual advances - the steam engine, the cinema, the telegraph, the telephone, the electric light, the novel, the automobile, the symphony, the airplane, the radio, the television, the personal computer, the Internet and countless medical cures - were created under capitalism?
The simple answer is: freedom.
When men are free to pursue their rational self-interest, when they are free to use their minds in the quest to profit and better their lives, they are magnificently productive. The political/economic freedom of capitalism liberates the best minds and the most ambitious men to build, to create, to innovate, to invent, to advance human well-being and happiness.
Mankins greatest inventor, Thomas Edison, in his laboratory at Menlo Park, specifically tailored his projects toward the purpose of profitability. He, and so many of the other great inventors and industrialists responsible for raising mes living standards, earned and enjoyed great wealth. Left free - under capitalism - to create, produce, and build for personal gain they consequently raised the living standards of all.
The Mind
Involved in this is a deeper principle: Capitalism is the system of the mind. The mind is mas fundamental survival instrument, just as wings are a birs. It is only by means of rational thinking and productive work that man can raise his living standards and increase his life expectancy. But the mind does not function under coercion. Coercion paralyses creativity. The mind cannot be enslaved. Capitalism flourishes because it is the only system of free minds, free men and free markets.
The greatest thinkers and activists of history - from Aristotle to John Locke, from Thomas Jefferson to Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and Ayn Rand - have recognized, fought for, and glorified the freedom of mas mind. They have understood that when men are oppressed, the rational mind is stifled, and the darkness of barbarism follows. But when men are free to think and to act on their thinking, when the mind is liberated, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment are possible. Freedom is freedom of the mind. Oppression is oppression of the mind.
Universal and Inevitable
It is no accident that mas freest periods have seen his greatest achievements. From the Golden Age of Athens to the Italian Renaissance to the technological and industrial breakthroughs of the United States, the freedom of man's mind has led to magnificent advances in philosophy, the arts and science.
This is the promise and the possibility of capitalism. This is the Capitalist Vision. It is our vision.
Liberate mas mind and behold the spectacle of his advance. Revel in the beauty of his sculptures, paintings and symphonies, soar with the heroes of his novels, marvel at his philosophic, scientific and technological advance.
The West progressed culturally and economically because it had at least some reverence for mas mind and the inalienable rights of the individual. These are the inescapable prerequisites of human advancement. If we desire the effect of cultural Renaissance, we must enact the cause of political/economic freedom.
The current predicament of the Third Worls starving millions is identical to that of Europe in the Dark Ages. Their minds and bodies are oppressed by political dictators. Give them freedom - and give them life. They have the advantage of seeing what the West has accomplished. When they institute freedom, they can replicate the achievements of capitalism.
Your life, your choice
Capitalism is the greatest benefactor man has ever had. It is time for the thinking men and women of every nation to recognize that fact and to fully embrace the system of the mind and of individual rights.
Men and women of all countries unite - in your support of capitalism.
You have a world of joyous achievement to win.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by musicman

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Where is the moral relativism in rooting morality in the consequences of that morality to this human life in this world?

Doing so presupposes that man is inherently moral. Surely you don't believe that!?

No, I don't. And it presupposes no such thing. It merely provides an objective measure by which to determine whether our actions are moral or not. It does not rely upon someone from a priestly class giving us their interpretation of divine law. That is true moral relativism...The subjective, arbitrary pronouncements from on high.