Bible Discussion: "Moral Relativism" -- For People Who Use Their Heads For More Than Hat-racks.

"Moral Relativism" -- For People Who Use Their Heads For More Than Hat-racks.
Posts: 200

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Craig Chilton
2004-04-20 00:22:16 EST

The cult of the "Religious" Radical Right -- which is 100%
radical, but only pseudo-religious -- has several major hangups.
Its adherents/lemmings all are ---

-- Busybodies
-- Uncompasionate to concerns they disagree with
-- Control-Freakish
-- Inflexible
-- Disrespective of several personal liberties
-- People who view everything in terms of "absolutes"
-- People who deplore "moral relativism"
-- Opposed to granting across-the-board equal rights to all
-- Buttinskies
-- Brainwsahed/programmed by false/Un-Biblical dogmas
-- Intolerant of *private* behaviors they don't like (even
though those are none of their business.
-- Steeped in the silly (and almost always wrong/phony) jargon
they employ to belittle legitimate aspects of society.
(E.g., Ignoring the U.S. Constitution's system of checks
and balances, and hatefully claiming that the legitimate
formation of Judicial Law is "legislating from the bench"
by "activist judges." On the other hand, if the decision
is one that they *favor*, then these terms are never used,
and the judges suddenly are nice, "constructionist." ones.

So much for the "absolutes." A judge could easily be a
hated "activist" judge on one decision, and then be a beloved
"constructionist" judge on another. (However, in reality, this
seldom happens. Most judges who kowtow to the RRR cult's
agendas do so very consistently, while the egalitarian judges
almost always rule fairly, which makes them anathema to the
cultists.)

Of course, many things ARE properly expressed as absolutes.
Every action that any person can take which carries a significant
risk of doing overt harm to others is absolutely wrong. Every
case of a person doing harm, *purposely*, to others, is wrong.
That pretty much covers the absolutes. If a person's behavior
does NO overt harm to others, or to the possessions of others,
then whether or not the behavior is worthy of criticism becomes a
judgment call. A valid judgment call requires THINKING on the
part of the person who chooses to judge the behavior or action.
And a *thinking* person will **weigh** all of the relevant pros and
cons that apply to the case. BEFORE making his judgment call.

Of course, part of the mix in the factors necessary for
consideration is whether or not the behavior/action/decision
up for judgment by a peer is a **personal** and **private** one.
IF so, then the **thinking** person will immediately back off,
and recognize that NO judgment call is either necessary or
appropriate. Because in such intances, that which is being
considered is NONE of their business. (The only exception
to that is in the case when the person whose actions are
being considered *solicits* the opinion of the one who's doing
the considering.)

This evaluation process, when done properly, generally is
tested against the Golden Rule.

The RRR cultists are notorious for making *their* judgment
calls on the basis of that which they call "absolutes." And to
them, if ANYTHING in the Bible even *hints* that someone's
behavior might be "sinful," then they judge. Harshly. Worse
yet, if the Bible says absolutely NOTHING against the
behavior/decision being considered, BUT one of the cult's
**phony** dogmas is being "violated," (e.g., choosing to have
an abortion), then the person being judged is automatically
condemned.

RRR cultists make the HUGE mistake of somehow regarding
themselves to be **enforcers** of Biblical precepts (and worse,
some of their leaders' own humanly-concocted ones, such as
regarding anything to be wrong with abortion) against society
in general. However, the Bible in NO WAY appoints or author-
izes **any** such Gestapo.

Nor, for that matter, does the Bible matter at all to literally
tens of millions of Americans. Per the Gallup Poll, 83% of
Americans profess Christianity. Let's add 1% to cover the
Jews, who use the Old Testament. That leaves 16%. And
that adds up to 46,000,000 people!! 46 MILLION!

BOTTOM LINE: The reasonable employment of "moral
relativism" is in actuality strong evidence of why God put
humanity on the earth with the capability to think and reason,
rather than populate the earth with a race of automatons. It
gives people the capability to be FAIR and COMPASSIONATE.
(Which is in keeping with Jesus' prime directive -- that His
followers show love and compassion to their neighbors. Any
person who supports agendas which would mindlessly and
hatefully impose immense hardship and misery upon millions
of people, and deprive them of equal rights over matters that
are personal, private, irrelevant, and trivial (such as their
opposition to same-sex marriage, which would harm NO one),
is in direct violation of Jesus' directive. And thus, if he claims
to be a Christian, he is the worst of hypocrites.

The agendas of the RRR Cult are totally devoid of any
redeeming social significance. Demonstrably, and proven
by the cultists constantly and consistently. Thus, there IS
an "absolute" that comes into play: they are ABSOLUTELY
wrong.


Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---

http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html

AND...

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Dana <@@>
2004-04-20 01:19:59 EST
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:408ca4f2.18407788@netnews.mchsi.com...

Why did Margaret Mead have to lie about the Samoans to give legitimacy to
Moral Relativism. Seems your Moral Relativism is based on a pack of lies.
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
--
"[Liberty] considers religion as the safeguard of morality, and morality as
the best security of law and the surest pledge of the duration of freedom."
--Alexis de Toqueville



Craig Chilton
2004-04-20 07:52:38 EST
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 05:19:59 GMT,
"Dana" wrote:
> "Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:


>> The cult of the "Religious" Radical Right -- which is 100%
>> radical, but only pseudo-religious -- has several major hangups.
>> Its adherents/lemmings all are ---
>>
>> -- Busybodies
>> -- Uncompasionate to concerns they disagree with
>> -- Control-Freakish
>> -- Inflexible
>> -- Disrespective of several personal liberties
>> -- People who view everything in terms of "absolutes"
>> -- People who deplore "moral relativism"
>> -- Opposed to granting across-the-board equal rights to all
>> -- Buttinskies
>> -- Brainwashed/programmed by false/Un-Biblical dogmas
>> -- Intolerant of *private* behaviors they don't like (even
>> though those are none of their business.
>> -- Steeped in the silly (and almost always wrong/phony) jargon
>> they employ to belittle legitimate aspects of society.
>> (E.g., Ignoring the U.S. Constitution's system of checks
>> and balances, and hatefully claiming that the legitimate
>> formation of Judicial Law is "legislating from the bench"
>> by "activist judges." On the other hand, if the decision
>> is one that they *favor*, then these terms are never used,
>> and the judges suddenly are nice, "constructionist." ones.
>>
>> So much for the "absolutes." A judge could easily be a
>> hated "activist" judge on one decision, and then be a beloved
>> "constructionist" judge on another. (However, in reality, this
>> seldom happens. Most judges who kowtow to the RRR cult's
>> agendas do so very consistently, while the egalitarian judges
>> almost always rule fairly, which makes them anathema to the
>> cultists.)
>>
>> Of course, many things ARE properly expressed as absolutes.
>> Every action that any person can take which carries a significant
>> risk of doing overt harm to others is absolutely wrong. Every
>> case of a person doing harm, *purposely*, to others, is wrong.
>> That pretty much covers the absolutes. If a person's behavior
>> does NO overt harm to others, or to the possessions of others,
>> then whether or not the behavior is worthy of criticism becomes a
>> judgment call. A valid judgment call requires THINKING on the
>> part of the person who chooses to judge the behavior or action.
>> And a *thinking* person will **weigh** all of the relevant pros and
>> cons that apply to the case. BEFORE making his judgment call.
>>
>> Of course, part of the mix in the factors necessary for
>> consideration is whether or not the behavior/action/decision
>> up for judgment by a peer is a **personal** and **private** one.
>> IF so, then the **thinking** person will immediately back off,
>> and recognize that NO judgment call is either necessary or
>> appropriate. Because in such intances, that which is being
>> considered is NONE of their business. (The only exception
>> to that is in the case when the person whose actions are
>> being considered *solicits* the opinion of the one who's doing
>> the considering.)
>>
>> This evaluation process, when done properly, generally is
>> tested against the Golden Rule.
>>
>> The RRR cultists are notorious for making *their* judgment
>> calls on the basis of that which they call "absolutes." And to
>> them, if ANYTHING in the Bible even *hints* that someone's
>> behavior might be "sinful," then they judge. Harshly. Worse
>> yet, if the Bible says absolutely NOTHING against the
>> behavior/decision being considered, BUT one of the cult's
>> **phony** dogmas is being "violated," (e.g., choosing to have
>> an abortion), then the person being judged is automatically
>> condemned.
>>
>> RRR cultists make the HUGE mistake of somehow regarding
>> themselves to be **enforcers** of Biblical precepts (and worse,
>> some of their leaders' own humanly-concocted ones, such as
>> regarding anything to be wrong with abortion) against society
>> in general. However, the Bible in NO WAY appoints or author-
>> izes **any** such Gestapo.
>>
>> Nor, for that matter, does the Bible matter at all to literally
>> tens of millions of Americans. Per the Gallup Poll, 83% of
>> Americans profess Christianity. Let's add 1% to cover the
>> Jews, who use the Old Testament. That leaves 16%. And
>> that adds up to 46,000,000 people!! 46 MILLION!
>>
>> BOTTOM LINE: The reasonable employment of "moral
>> relativism" is in actuality strong evidence of why God put
>> humanity on the earth with the capability to think and reason,
>> rather than populating the earth with a race of automatons. It
>> gives people the capability to be FAIR and COMPASSIONATE.
>> (Which is in keeping with Jesus' prime directive -- that His
>> followers show love and compassion to their neighbors. Any
>> person who supports agendas which would mindlessly and
>> hatefully impose immense hardship and misery upon millions
>> of people, and deprive them of equal rights over matters that
>> are personal, private, irrelevant, and trivial (such as their
>> opposition to same-sex marriage, which would harm NO one),
>> is in direct violation of Jesus' directive. And thus, if he claims
>> to be a Christian, he is the worst of hypocrites.
>>
>> The agendas of the RRR Cult are totally devoid of any
>> redeeming social significance. Demonstrably, and proven
>> by the cultists constantly and consistently. Thus, there IS
>> an "absolute" that comes into play: they are ABSOLUTELY
>> wrong.

> Why did Margaret Mead have to lie about the Samoans to
> give legitimacy to Moral Relativism. Seems your Moral Relativism
> is based on a pack of lies.

Although (since I minored in anthropology/sociology in undergrad
college) I am somewhat familiar with Margaret Mead's work, I have not
read up on her work in Samoa in such a regard. But that probably a
plus in this instance, since my analysis of true moral relativism is
entirely my own, based on fairness and common sense. It is telling
that your post is one step worse than a top-posting... because not
only did you avoid responding to my points, point-by-point, you ALSO
omitted my entire discussion.

THIS response **includes** that discussion, *restored*, above. If
you want to be credible, let's see you direct your criticism SPECIFIC-
ALLY at the points that I made, therein.

"MY" presentation of moral relativism is quite the OPPOSITE of
a "pack of lies." It is FACT-based, and your callously lying *about*
it is degrading only to you. If you think it contains any lies, then
it is incumbent upon YOU to credibly **demonstrate** that, point-
by-point, bringing facts to bear in the process.


Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---

http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html

AND...

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Pastor Dave
2004-04-20 08:21:38 EST
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:52:38 GMT, xanadu222@mchsi.com
(Craig Chilton) spake thusly:

>On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 05:19:59 GMT,
>"Dana" wrote:
>> "Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> The cult of the "Religious" Radical Right -- which is 100%
>>> radical, but only pseudo-religious -- has several major hangups.
>>> Its adherents/lemmings all are ---
>>>
>>> -- Busybodies
>>> -- Uncompasionate to concerns they disagree with
>>> -- Control-Freakish
>>> -- Inflexible
>>> -- Disrespective of several personal liberties
>>> -- People who view everything in terms of "absolutes"
>>> -- People who deplore "moral relativism"
>>> -- Opposed to granting across-the-board equal rights to all
>>> -- Buttinskies
>>> -- Brainwashed/programmed by false/Un-Biblical dogmas
>>> -- Intolerant of *private* behaviors they don't like (even
>>> though those are none of their business.
>>> -- Steeped in the silly (and almost always wrong/phony) jargon
>>> they employ to belittle legitimate aspects of society.
>>> (E.g., Ignoring the U.S. Constitution's system of checks
>>> and balances, and hatefully claiming that the legitimate
>>> formation of Judicial Law is "legislating from the bench"
>>> by "activist judges." On the other hand, if the decision
>>> is one that they *favor*, then these terms are never used,
>>> and the judges suddenly are nice, "constructionist." ones.
>>>
>>> So much for the "absolutes." A judge could easily be a
>>> hated "activist" judge on one decision, and then be a beloved
>>> "constructionist" judge on another. (However, in reality, this
>>> seldom happens. Most judges who kowtow to the RRR cult's
>>> agendas do so very consistently, while the egalitarian judges
>>> almost always rule fairly, which makes them anathema to the
>>> cultists.)
>>>
>>> Of course, many things ARE properly expressed as absolutes.
>>> Every action that any person can take which carries a significant
>>> risk of doing overt harm to others is absolutely wrong. Every
>>> case of a person doing harm, *purposely*, to others, is wrong.
>>> That pretty much covers the absolutes. If a person's behavior
>>> does NO overt harm to others, or to the possessions of others,
>>> then whether or not the behavior is worthy of criticism becomes a
>>> judgment call. A valid judgment call requires THINKING on the
>>> part of the person who chooses to judge the behavior or action.
>>> And a *thinking* person will **weigh** all of the relevant pros and
>>> cons that apply to the case. BEFORE making his judgment call.
>>>
>>> Of course, part of the mix in the factors necessary for
>>> consideration is whether or not the behavior/action/decision
>>> up for judgment by a peer is a **personal** and **private** one.
>>> IF so, then the **thinking** person will immediately back off,
>>> and recognize that NO judgment call is either necessary or
>>> appropriate. Because in such intances, that which is being
>>> considered is NONE of their business. (The only exception
>>> to that is in the case when the person whose actions are
>>> being considered *solicits* the opinion of the one who's doing
>>> the considering.)
>>>
>>> This evaluation process, when done properly, generally is
>>> tested against the Golden Rule.
>>>
>>> The RRR cultists are notorious for making *their* judgment
>>> calls on the basis of that which they call "absolutes." And to
>>> them, if ANYTHING in the Bible even *hints* that someone's
>>> behavior might be "sinful," then they judge. Harshly. Worse
>>> yet, if the Bible says absolutely NOTHING against the
>>> behavior/decision being considered, BUT one of the cult's
>>> **phony** dogmas is being "violated," (e.g., choosing to have
>>> an abortion), then the person being judged is automatically
>>> condemned.
>>>
>>> RRR cultists make the HUGE mistake of somehow regarding
>>> themselves to be **enforcers** of Biblical precepts (and worse,
>>> some of their leaders' own humanly-concocted ones, such as
>>> regarding anything to be wrong with abortion) against society
>>> in general. However, the Bible in NO WAY appoints or author-
>>> izes **any** such Gestapo.
>>>
>>> Nor, for that matter, does the Bible matter at all to literally
>>> tens of millions of Americans. Per the Gallup Poll, 83% of
>>> Americans profess Christianity. Let's add 1% to cover the
>>> Jews, who use the Old Testament. That leaves 16%. And
>>> that adds up to 46,000,000 people!! 46 MILLION!
>>>
>>> BOTTOM LINE: The reasonable employment of "moral
>>> relativism" is in actuality strong evidence of why God put
>>> humanity on the earth with the capability to think and reason,
>>> rather than populating the earth with a race of automatons. It
>>> gives people the capability to be FAIR and COMPASSIONATE.
>>> (Which is in keeping with Jesus' prime directive -- that His
>>> followers show love and compassion to their neighbors. Any
>>> person who supports agendas which would mindlessly and
>>> hatefully impose immense hardship and misery upon millions
>>> of people, and deprive them of equal rights over matters that
>>> are personal, private, irrelevant, and trivial (such as their
>>> opposition to same-sex marriage, which would harm NO one),
>>> is in direct violation of Jesus' directive. And thus, if he claims
>>> to be a Christian, he is the worst of hypocrites.
>>>
>>> The agendas of the RRR Cult are totally devoid of any
>>> redeeming social significance. Demonstrably, and proven
>>> by the cultists constantly and consistently. Thus, there IS
>>> an "absolute" that comes into play: they are ABSOLUTELY
>>> wrong.
>
>> Why did Margaret Mead have to lie about the Samoans to
>> give legitimacy to Moral Relativism. Seems your Moral Relativism
>> is based on a pack of lies.
>
> Although (since I minored in anthropology/sociology in undergrad
>college) I am somewhat familiar with Margaret Mead's work, I have not
>read up on her work in Samoa in such a regard. But that probably a
>plus in this instance, since my analysis of true moral relativism is
>entirely my own, based on fairness and common sense. It is telling
>that your post is one step worse than a top-posting... because not
>only did you avoid responding to my points, point-by-point, you ALSO
>omitted my entire discussion.
>
> THIS response **includes** that discussion, *restored*, above. If
>you want to be credible, let's see you direct your criticism SPECIFIC-
>ALLY at the points that I made, therein.
>
> "MY" presentation of moral relativism is quite the OPPOSITE of
>a "pack of lies." It is FACT-based, and your callously lying *about*
>it is degrading only to you. If you think it contains any lies, then
>it is incumbent upon YOU to credibly **demonstrate** that, point-
>by-point, bringing facts to bear in the process.
>
>
> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>

Morals are always absolute, period. Your argument
comes down to each person doing the same thing and
deciding for themselves, if it's moral. An act is
either moral. or it isn't.



± Pastor Dave Raymond ±

"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16

"If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject
what you like - it is not the Gospel you believe, but
yourselves." - St. Augustine



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Ninure Saunders
2004-04-20 09:09:24 EST
In article <57cc80c9597ee40850aca752aeb55d20@news.meganetnews.com>, "Dana"
<@@> wrote:

Dana\ufffds idea of morality, and family values:

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=feet%20&safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_uauthors=dana%20raffaniello%20&lr=&num=50&hl=en

Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk

The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk

My latest Poll
Who would Jesus vote for?
http://www.network54.com/Hide/Votelet/34458


My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk

My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org

To send e-mail, remove nohate from address

RainLover
2004-04-20 09:09:36 EST
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 04:22:16 GMT, xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote:

>The RRR cultists are notorious for making *their* judgment
>calls on the basis of that which they call "absolutes." And to
>them, if ANYTHING in the Bible even *hints* that someone's
>behavior might be "sinful," then they judge. Harshly.

I beg to differ on with you on this claim. They don't judge people harshly every time the bible
HINTS at something being sinful.

"Thou SHALL keep the Sabbath Holy"
"It's an ABOMINATION to eat shellfish (including shrimp)"
Getting REmarried is "adultery" (with only 2 exceptions)
Thou WILL ONLY pray in closets (praying in public is hypocritcal says the Lord)
You will stone disobediant sons and adulterous women to death.
You SHALL kill witches. (no exceptions... GOD Himself ordered it)

Of course, the list goes on and on of things the religious right "christians" outright ignore from
the bible...

It's much easier and fun to find the sins they themselves don't commit or admit to commiting and go
after THOSE "sinners".

Their own Jesus even warned against doing this type of behavior... just another part of the Bible
that doesn't suit them so they ignore what GOD SAID about it...


>Worse
>yet, if the Bible says absolutely NOTHING against the
>behavior/decision being considered, BUT one of the cult's
>**phony** dogmas is being "violated," (e.g., choosing to have
>an abortion), then the person being judged is automatically
>condemned.

Of course! It's fun to act holier-than-thou; you should try it once. I did it for 25+ years and it
was a hoot.

James, Seattle


RainLover
2004-04-20 09:22:55 EST
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 05:19:59 GMT, "Dana" <@@> wrote:

>"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>news:408ca4f2.18407788@netnews.mchsi.com...
>

>Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
>ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
>at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.

"Atheism" teaches nothing. There's no 'movement' or congregations of Athiests. There's no
Athiestic rallying cries or city-wide protests about anything. "Athiest" doesn't describe a
coalesced group of people at all; it describes individuals who believe there are no gods. Period.

As for 'rights'... Show what 'rights' the christian god lists out for people in the bible?

The 'right' for women to be subserviant to husbands.
The 'right' for slave owners to beat their slaves (and if the slave doesn't die within a day, the
owner did nothing wrong).
The 'right' to ONLY pray in PRIVATE (in a closet were GOD'S actual words)


Freedom? The pursuit of happiness? Liberty? These things are definately NOT 'god-given'. God
expects people to OBEY Him, damn what they want.

Athiests may or may not believe in the superiority to the state in general, but when given the
alternative of living under a THEOCRACY Athiests would agree that the secular state is better.
Heck, most Christians would agree that living under a secular state is better than living under a
Religious State.


>"[Liberty] considers religion as the safeguard of morality, and morality as
>the best security of law and the surest pledge of the duration of freedom."
> --Alexis de Toqueville

James, Seattle

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image
when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. - Anne Lamott


RainLover
2004-04-20 10:13:15 EST
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:21:38 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Morals are always absolute, period. Your argument
>comes down to each person doing the same thing and
>deciding for themselves, if it's moral. An act is
>either moral. or it isn't.

1 Is it moral to kill a spider?

2 Is it moral for a soldier to kill an enemy if the soldier is part of an invading army?

3 Is masturbation moral?

4 Is watching a porn with your spouse moral?

5 Is a 40 year old man marrying a 10 year old girl moral if her parents agree to it?

6 Is a man having two wives moral?

7 Is divorce moral?

8 Is cutting off a thief's hand moral?

9 Is the Death Penalty moral?

10 Is stoning a disobedient son to death moral?

11 Is killing a woman who was raped moral?

12 Is it moral to lie to the police if it keeps a truly innocent person out of jail?

13 Is torture moral if it illicits a confession from a truly guilty man?


I'm glad you have the inside scoop on what's moral and not for EVERYONE... after you answer these, I
have a few hundred more questions for you. ( I numbered these to make sure you answer them all
without having to find this post to see if you snipped some of them)

James, Seattle




Pastor Dave
2004-04-20 11:05:43 EST
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:52:38 GMT, xanadu222@mchsi.com
(Craig Chilton) spake thusly:

>On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 05:19:59 GMT,
>"Dana" wrote:
>> "Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> The cult of the "Religious" Radical Right -- which is 100%
>>> radical, but only pseudo-religious -- has several major hangups.
>>> Its adherents/lemmings all are ---
>>>
>>> -- Busybodies
>>> -- Uncompasionate to concerns they disagree with
>>> -- Control-Freakish
>>> -- Inflexible
>>> -- Disrespective of several personal liberties
>>> -- People who view everything in terms of "absolutes"
>>> -- People who deplore "moral relativism"
>>> -- Opposed to granting across-the-board equal rights to all
>>> -- Buttinskies
>>> -- Brainwashed/programmed by false/Un-Biblical dogmas
>>> -- Intolerant of *private* behaviors they don't like (even
>>> though those are none of their business.
>>> -- Steeped in the silly (and almost always wrong/phony) jargon
>>> they employ to belittle legitimate aspects of society.
>>> (E.g., Ignoring the U.S. Constitution's system of checks
>>> and balances, and hatefully claiming that the legitimate
>>> formation of Judicial Law is "legislating from the bench"
>>> by "activist judges." On the other hand, if the decision
>>> is one that they *favor*, then these terms are never used,
>>> and the judges suddenly are nice, "constructionist." ones.
>>>
>>> So much for the "absolutes." A judge could easily be a
>>> hated "activist" judge on one decision, and then be a beloved
>>> "constructionist" judge on another. (However, in reality, this
>>> seldom happens. Most judges who kowtow to the RRR cult's
>>> agendas do so very consistently, while the egalitarian judges
>>> almost always rule fairly, which makes them anathema to the
>>> cultists.)
>>>
>>> Of course, many things ARE properly expressed as absolutes.
>>> Every action that any person can take which carries a significant
>>> risk of doing overt harm to others is absolutely wrong. Every
>>> case of a person doing harm, *purposely*, to others, is wrong.
>>> That pretty much covers the absolutes. If a person's behavior
>>> does NO overt harm to others, or to the possessions of others,
>>> then whether or not the behavior is worthy of criticism becomes a
>>> judgment call. A valid judgment call requires THINKING on the
>>> part of the person who chooses to judge the behavior or action.
>>> And a *thinking* person will **weigh** all of the relevant pros and
>>> cons that apply to the case. BEFORE making his judgment call.
>>>
>>> Of course, part of the mix in the factors necessary for
>>> consideration is whether or not the behavior/action/decision
>>> up for judgment by a peer is a **personal** and **private** one.
>>> IF so, then the **thinking** person will immediately back off,
>>> and recognize that NO judgment call is either necessary or
>>> appropriate. Because in such intances, that which is being
>>> considered is NONE of their business. (The only exception
>>> to that is in the case when the person whose actions are
>>> being considered *solicits* the opinion of the one who's doing
>>> the considering.)
>>>
>>> This evaluation process, when done properly, generally is
>>> tested against the Golden Rule.
>>>
>>> The RRR cultists are notorious for making *their* judgment
>>> calls on the basis of that which they call "absolutes." And to
>>> them, if ANYTHING in the Bible even *hints* that someone's
>>> behavior might be "sinful," then they judge. Harshly. Worse
>>> yet, if the Bible says absolutely NOTHING against the
>>> behavior/decision being considered, BUT one of the cult's
>>> **phony** dogmas is being "violated," (e.g., choosing to have
>>> an abortion), then the person being judged is automatically
>>> condemned.
>>>
>>> RRR cultists make the HUGE mistake of somehow regarding
>>> themselves to be **enforcers** of Biblical precepts (and worse,
>>> some of their leaders' own humanly-concocted ones, such as
>>> regarding anything to be wrong with abortion) against society
>>> in general. However, the Bible in NO WAY appoints or author-
>>> izes **any** such Gestapo.
>>>
>>> Nor, for that matter, does the Bible matter at all to literally
>>> tens of millions of Americans. Per the Gallup Poll, 83% of
>>> Americans profess Christianity. Let's add 1% to cover the
>>> Jews, who use the Old Testament. That leaves 16%. And
>>> that adds up to 46,000,000 people!! 46 MILLION!
>>>
>>> BOTTOM LINE: The reasonable employment of "moral
>>> relativism" is in actuality strong evidence of why God put
>>> humanity on the earth with the capability to think and reason,
>>> rather than populating the earth with a race of automatons. It
>>> gives people the capability to be FAIR and COMPASSIONATE.
>>> (Which is in keeping with Jesus' prime directive -- that His
>>> followers show love and compassion to their neighbors. Any
>>> person who supports agendas which would mindlessly and
>>> hatefully impose immense hardship and misery upon millions
>>> of people, and deprive them of equal rights over matters that
>>> are personal, private, irrelevant, and trivial (such as their
>>> opposition to same-sex marriage, which would harm NO one),
>>> is in direct violation of Jesus' directive. And thus, if he claims
>>> to be a Christian, he is the worst of hypocrites.
>>>
>>> The agendas of the RRR Cult are totally devoid of any
>>> redeeming social significance. Demonstrably, and proven
>>> by the cultists constantly and consistently. Thus, there IS
>>> an "absolute" that comes into play: they are ABSOLUTELY
>>> wrong.
>
>> Why did Margaret Mead have to lie about the Samoans to
>> give legitimacy to Moral Relativism. Seems your Moral Relativism
>> is based on a pack of lies.
>
> Although (since I minored in anthropology/sociology in undergrad
>college) I am somewhat familiar with Margaret Mead's work, I have not
>read up on her work in Samoa in such a regard. But that probably a
>plus in this instance, since my analysis of true moral relativism is
>entirely my own, based on fairness and common sense. It is telling
>that your post is one step worse than a top-posting... because not
>only did you avoid responding to my points, point-by-point, you ALSO
>omitted my entire discussion.
>
> THIS response **includes** that discussion, *restored*, above. If
>you want to be credible, let's see you direct your criticism SPECIFIC-
>ALLY at the points that I made, therein.
>
> "MY" presentation of moral relativism is quite the OPPOSITE of
>a "pack of lies." It is FACT-based, and your callously lying *about*
>it is degrading only to you. If you think it contains any lies, then
>it is incumbent upon YOU to credibly **demonstrate** that, point-
>by-point, bringing facts to bear in the process.
>
>
> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>

Morals are always absolute, period. Your argument
comes down to each person doing the same thing and
deciding for themselves, if it's moral. An act is
either moral. or it isn't.





--
\ufffd Pastor Dave \ufffd


"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by rulers as useful."
Seneca


Craig Chilton
2004-04-20 11:20:28 EST
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 06:09:36 -0700,
RainLover <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:


[ ... ]

>>The RRR cultists are notorious for making *their* judgment
>>calls on the basis of that which they call "absolutes." And to
>>them, if ANYTHING in the Bible even *hints* that someone's
>>behavior might be "sinful," then they judge. Harshly.

> I beg to differ on with you on this claim. They don't judge
> people harshly every time the Bible HINTS at something being
> sinful.
>
> "Thou SHALL keep the Sabbath Holy"
> "It's an ABOMINATION to eat shellfish (including shrimp)"
> Getting REmarried is "adultery" (with only 2 exceptions)
> Thou WILL ONLY pray in closets (praying in public is
> hypocritical says the Lord)
> You will stone disobediant sons and adulterous women to death.
> You SHALL kill witches. (no exceptions... GOD Himself ordered it)
>
> Of course, the list goes on and on of things the religious right
> "Christians" outright ignore from the Bible...
>
> It's much easier and fun to find the sins they themselves don't
> commit or admit to commiting and go after THOSE "sinners."
>
> Their own Jesus even warned against doing this type of
> behavior... just another part of the Bible that doesn't suit them so
> they ignore what GOD SAID about it...

Excellent point. I stand corrected on my eviden omission of
something that i usually point out when this topic comes up: that
the RRR cultists are "cafeteria" Christians. And that isn't just
reserved to picking and choosing the portions of the Bible for which
they attempt to act as Gestapo against society in general. Their
Gestapo-ism *includes* seeking to impose FALSE dogmas of their
loony and very UN-Christian cult upon society in general. (The latter
point as alluded to below, in my previous post.) ---

>> Worse yet, if the Bible says absolutely NOTHING against the
>> behavior/decision being considered, BUT one of the cult's
>> **phony** dogmas is being "violated," (e.g., choosing to have
>> an abortion), then the person being judged is automatically
>> condemned.

> Of course! It's fun to act holier-than-thou; you should try it
> once. I did it for 25+ years and it was a hoot.

LOL!! Obviously, you outgrew that. Good for you!

>James, Seattle


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron