Is Free Republic becoming increasingly hostile towards Social Conservatives?

self ^ | self

[exmarine]

Are you a sociopath or not?

[exmarine]

Please address my logical arguments directly. I refuted relativism and you did not respond. Either refute my arguments in #675 or go away. Your red herrings are tiresome.

[AUgrad]

You missed my point. I am not saying that there is no objective truth. I am referring to your assertion that you know exactly what the truth is in reference to scripture.You seem to consider yourself the difinitive word on what scripture means despite the fact that there are numerous differences in doctorine in churches that all read the exact same bible. Then I pointed out that the Bible says "thou shall not kill", yet we do it every day. Should we or should we not kill? I'll ask one more time.Are Catholics more right than Baptists? Do they not interpret scripture in a manner particular to their denomination? Are you saying you are the only one who knows what truth is?

[The Green Goblin]

If relativism is true, I can't be wrong!

We're talking about moral relativism. Don't change the subject (notice how you conveniently left out the word "moral").

[The Green Goblin]

Are you a sociopath or not?

No more so than the God-approved rapists and baby killers shown in the scriptures I've provided.

[The Green Goblin]

Murder, rape, incest, and burglary cannot be declared wrong by a moral relativist if they are right to me (these acts may be legally wrong, but in relativism, laws can have no objective moral basis, therefore to say something is illegal is not to say it is morally wrong). A relativist can only say they are wrong in his personal view, but who cares about his opinion if I am a serial killer with my own personal ethic to follow? Besides, the word “wrong” is meaningless in relativism. A relativist might respond that situations are so diverse and complex that no one moral rule can be universal and I would grant this, however, this is very different from proving that relativism is correct. At best, this shows that absolute principles must be applied to different situations.

This argument actually makes my case. I have already demonstrated how God sometimes approves rape and child-killing. Thus, if you follow God, you cannot say that these things are unequivocally wrong either. You see, we're all in the same boat where moral relativism is concerned.

[exmarine]

Regardless of what the different denominations claim, there is only ONE correct interpretation of scripture - the one the writer intended.

[exmarine]

Right, if moral relativsm is true, I can't be wrong because my moral system is just as true as yours; therefore if I say morals are absolute - under your bogus system, I am right and for you to say I am wrong is to step outside of relativism and posit an objective argument. Gotcha.

[The Green Goblin]

If the person who manifests relativism in the most consistent fashion is the best role model, then a sociopath would be the poster boy for relativism (perhaps like Harris and Klebold of Columbine fame). Thus, if relativism is a valid ethic, Harris and Klebold were not morally wrong in slaughtering 13 people at Columbine High - they were good relativists.

How was Columbine any different than the case of the infants who were killed (with God's approval) in Deuteronomy 12:33-34?

[exmarine]

This argument actually makes my case. I have already demonstrated how God sometimes approves rape and child-killing. Thus, if you follow God, you cannot say that these things are unequivocally wrong either. You see, we're all in the same boat where moral relativism is concerned.

Huh? My argument refutes moral relativism. What are you talking about?

[AUgrad]

Again you fail to address my question. Who knows what the writer intended?

[The Green Goblin]

Right, if moral relativsm is true, I can't be wrong because my moral system is just as true as yours; therefore if I say morals are absolute - under your bogus system, I am right and for you to say I am wrong is to step outside of relativism and posit an objective argument. Gotcha.

If you want to believe in absolute morality, go ahead. All I've done is show that the Bible does not teach such a thing, and that God cannot be relied on upon to support your argument, because he sometimes encourages rape and child-killing. Question: if rape and child-killing are sometimes okay, how can that not be moral relativism??

[exmarine]

Would God provide His Word if He didn't give us the ability to understand the true meaning of it? That doesn't make sense, now does it? Clearly, scriptural truths are spiritual discerned and without the spirit you cannot know the truth (1cor 2:14). Clearly not all denominations can be correct.

[exmarine]

And all I've done is rip your moral system to shreds using simple irrefutable logic.

[AUgrad]

When is it OK to kill? If it is ever OK to kill, why isn't that stated in the 10 commandments?

[BikerNYC]

Regardless of what the different denominations claim, there is only ONE correct interpretation of scripture - the one the writer intended.

I disagree. If a writer writes badly, a reasonable interpretation of his work might be completely at odds with what he intended.

Once a writer puts his work down on paper, anyone who reads it is free to interpret it, and the writer's interpretation becomes just one among many. He may claim he meant to say something, but he may have failed in his attempt, and thus his intention is not reflected in his actual words. And it is his words that get interpreted, not his subjective intent.

[The Green Goblin]

Huh? My argument refutes moral relativism. What are you talking about?

You stated that a moral relativist cannot declare rape to be unequivocally wrong. I showed you that you cannot declare such a thing either, if you use God as your basis--since God (as I've thoroughly demonstrated using your Bible) sometimes considers rape and murder to be morally valid. If you have some other basis for moral absolutes then please present it--but, I've shown you that your use of God for moral absolutism is invalid.

[exmarine]

How was Columbine any different than the case of the infants who were killed (with God's approval) in Deuteronomy 12:33-34?

Let me give you some true history behind the story. The people in Canaan were given 400 years to repent from their wicked ways. They sacrificed their children on the arms of the false God Molech (like we do today to our unborn) as a fertility rite. God ordered all of them to be slaughtered because they were wicked. He gave them 400 years to repent and they did not. HOw much time should God give them? a million years? Who are you to judge the perfect judge? You are a mere ignorant mortal. Furthermore, the children had to be killed because they would grow up to be just like their wicked parents, as the apple never falls far from the tree (if you need a modern example, look at the palestinians who train 4-year-olds to be murderous martyrs). In order to cleanse the land and protect the Jews from being polluted by their wickedness, they had to be erased.

[The Green Goblin]

And all I've done is rip your moral system to shreds using simple irrefutable logic.

I've proven that God advocates moral relativism, so you and I are in the same boat, although for different reasons.

[exmarine]

You stated that a moral relativist cannot declare rape to be unequivocally wrong. I showed you that you cannot declare such a thing either, if you use God as your basis--since God (as I've thoroughly demonstrated using your Bible) sometimes considers rape and murder to be morally valid. If you have some other basis for moral absolutes then please present it--but, I've shown you that your use of God for moral absolutism is invalid.

YOu are a relativist so you can't declare anyone's moral system to be wrong or invalid without contradicting yourself Mr. relativist, which you continue to do (see the previous exchange). You can only avoid self-contradiction by just shutting up on the topic. You lost the debate.