You Say "Geez..you social conservatives fail to see any gray areas. There is no objective morality...but knowing that...we as a people should do the best we can."
Ahban says: Why should we do the "best" we can? If there is no objective morality, where do you get off claiming there is a "best"? The rational person who really believes there is no objective morality will indeed do the best they can - to advance their own interests no matter how badly others get hurt.
You are mistaken when you say that religious conservatives have no gray areas. As the scripture says, "one man regards one day above another, another man regards every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." Some things are gray, but not all things. It is instead you who leave no room for gray areas with the claim that their is no objective morality. That is a claim that leaves all black, with no area of light at all.
You say, "Wouldn't you like everyone to have a chance to be happy? So using our combined intellects..let us make a system which maximizes the opportunity! What we need is a set of rules that is flexible and inclusive without turning humankind to a primal survival test."
Ahban says: I would like everyone to have a chance to be happy. I only desire this because I believe in an objective moral order that has love of neighbor as a central theme. Lacking this belief, I would have no reason to "like everyone to have a chance to be happy". My primary concern would be to insure my own happiness, even at other's expense.
As for your appeal to "use our combined intellects" to make a system that "maximizes this opportunity", I would say that this has been tried many times. Each and every time it has been tried outside a framework of objective truth, from the French Revolution, to Marx, to Hitler, to Pol Pot, it has resulted in a totalitarian nightmare. Idealistic dreamers like yourself may start such revolutions, but they are soon supplanted by remorseless thugs who take the philosophy of moral relativism to its logical conclusion.
You say,"What we need is a set of rules that is flexible and inclusive without turning humankind to a primal survival test."
Why is that what we "need"? Why don't we need a set of rules that allows for the benefit of the Master Race (the one we belong too of course) at the expense of "lesser people's"? What if I think I am the fittest? Why don't I want to turn humankind into a primal survival test? Isn't that going to make the race stronger? Why is allowing weakness to multiply good? Why do I need to be "inclusive" towards people I don't like? Because leftwingrightwingchickenwing says so?
You say, "True liberty is allowing for moral relativism. True liberty is about making up your own mind about what is right for you and your own life only. Let me stress that, You and your own life only!"
Ahban says: Negative. True liberty is the freedom to exercise one's God given rights. The definition you give is for "license". The Founders of this country knew the difference. They knew that rights came from God. License does not produce liberty, but slavery. As individuals fall to whatever vices tempt them, they then will victimize others in an effort to sustain their vices. Eventually everyone in this "free" society becomes a prisoner as things soon descend into law-of-the-jungle style anarchy.
Rights are a gift of God, and therefore liberty cannot mean the freedom to do whatever destructive thing you care to do, but rather the freedom to exercize your God-given rights. The difference between these two defintions of liberty is the difference in outcome between the American Revolution and the French Revolution (the Jacobian Terror, followed by dictatorship to restore order).
You say:"I don't know why I dignified such an oft-regurgitated response with a reply of my own..."
Ahban says: You haven't dignified it with a response of your own. You are reading right out of the handbook. To find your self, first find your Maker.
Ahban said: Why should we do the "best" we can? If there is no objective morality, where do you get off claiming there is a "best"? The rational person who really believes there is no objective morality will indeed do the best they can - to advance their own interests no matter how badly others get hurt
I say: I have always said that religious conservatives would always go well with socialism...that is a collectivist statement if I ever had heard one! Quite honestly, we do not have responsiblities than the ones we choose! If you don't like people who only think of themselves..don't associate with them and encourage others to do the same. Having free will, they have the right to be as selfish as they please. This may seem scary to you...but the world is chaos...not only as reflected in the second law of thermodynamics...but as in sociology...where it is showing how wishy-washy reality really is!
Ahban said: You are mistaken when you say that religious conservatives have no gray areas. As the scripture says, "one man regards one day above another, another man regards every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." Some things are gray, but not all things. It is instead you who leave no room for gray areas with the claim that their is no objective morality. That is a claim that leaves all black, with no area of light at all.
I say: Realize that morality is a social construct created by humans...not created by God...created by humans...I know that your belief in God makes you happy...and I do not want to take that away from you...but what makes you happy makes other people misery...so I suppose you can say some people prefer another shade of grey over another...some people prefer darkness to light...and there isnt anything wrong with that in terms of personal conduct. So either way...please respect scripture and don't put personal beliefs in legislation.
Ahban said: I would like everyone to have a chance to be happy. I only desire this because I believe in an objective moral order that has love of neighbor as a central theme. Lacking this belief, I would have no reason to "like everyone to have a chance to be happy". My primary concern would be to insure my own happiness, even at other's expense.
I say: Well it appears that you only want yourself to be happy...but I thought you were against people on thinking of themselves. What you see as objective morality is certainly debatable. The fact that it is so easily debatable makes it cease to be objective! Anyway, you key mistake is insinuatign that happiness is objective, a totally laughable premise. Happiness is subjective and its definition is completely unique to each person..as is morality. We are all here to pursue our own version of happiness and self-gratification. Pol Pot and Mother Teresa may have had very different matters of self-gratification, but they certainly got their own version of happiness of their acts!
Ahban says: As for your appeal to "use our combined intellects" to make a system that "maximizes this opportunity", I would say that this has been tried many times. Each and every time it has been tried outside a framework of objective truth, from the French Revolution, to Marx, to Hitler, to Pol Pot, it has resulted in a totalitarian nightmare. Idealistic dreamers like yourself may start such revolutions, but they are soon supplanted by remorseless thugs who take the philosophy of moral relativism to its logical conclusion.
I say: That is utter bs...they didn't work outside the framework of objective truth..they created their own...just like the writers and the numerous upon numerous of translators of the Bible have. My ideas are to limit government power...by only having them deal in matters of non-consensual violence, fraud, theft, infrastructure, environmental, and bare bones welfare. Turn government into a debating society of the ever-evolving meaning of those things. You may find the Bible as a source of freedom, but I see it as a totalitarian document if it is included in government as has been document during the days the Catholic Church basically ruled Europe, and when Jews and Muslims were highly taxed in Spain during the inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials. Under your plan, one is right..under mine both are.
Ahban said: Why is that what we "need"? Why don't we need a set of rules that allows for the benefit of the Master Race (the one we belong too of course) at the expense of "lesser people's"? What if I think I am the fittest? Why don't I want to turn humankind into a primal survival test? Isn't that going to make the race stronger? Why is allowing weakness to multiply good? Why do I need to be "inclusive" towards people I don't like? Because leftwingrightwingchickenwing says so?
I am talking about the public sector!!!! People can discriminate all they like in their private lives, they will just have to pay the consequences from society's reaction. And it seems that people seem to ignore that fact. If you feel that you are part of a master race, you are free to start that revolution on the grass roots level..but keep it in the private sector as with my plan the public sector "government" in its small role will remain inclusive.
Ahban said: Negative. True liberty is the freedom to exercise one's God given rights. The definition you give is for "license". The Founders of this country knew the difference. They knew that rights came from God. License does not produce liberty, but slavery. As individuals fall to whatever vices tempt them, they then will victimize others in an effort to sustain their vices. Eventually everyone in this "free" society becomes a prisoner as things soon descend into law-of-the-jungle style anarchy.
I say: If you are in fact a by the word fundamentalist...I think that you would probably be a basket case. What is wrong with personal vice? Nothing! Did the Bible have some good laws that we should keep? Yes! Does that fact justify all the needless ones that should be on public record..no? God says "I change not," and yet the Catholic church and its protestant brethern keep on amending the Bible to their preferences..obeying what God said when he basically said case close I aint changin...here are some little practiced nuggets that are spoken of in the bible...
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
shrimp..crustaceans! Up their with homosexuality!!!!
Here is a fun one from Deuteronomy!
21:18
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19
Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
yes! stone your unruly children death. God says its A-OK!
and my personal favorite...
1 Corinthians 11:7
A man ought not to cover his head, [ Or 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering (of hair) on her head dishonors her head–she is just like one of the “shorn women.” 6 If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. 7 A man ought not to have long hair] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
1 Corinthians 11:14
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him
Long hair on a man..a disgrace to God! Sounds eerily similar to what is happing in North Korea..and guess who had long hair if those pictures of him were correct....
Basically...just respect the fact that some people don't believe rights are god given..that religion is okay but just not for them. Keep your personal conduct and beliefs out of law and I won't bother you.