B. W. wrote: It does not matter how many ways are involved in tying the knot correctly — if tied incorrectly — wrong is proven to exist. That is what you are failing to see clearly. What should be done is to secure and tie the knot correctly — the right way. From this, you learn that there is such thing as right and wrong.
Proinsias wrote: I really don't think we do. We define what we mean by a knot, by the very nature of language, and we set expectations. We say that if the knot slips it does not meet the expectations and if it does not slip it does meet the expectations. We learn to set expectations and judge our knot making based on this. You could tie a textbook knot but use it for the wrong purpose, this does not make the knot wrong. The knot is 'right', just not the best knot for this purpose, context matters.
Why does context matter since there is no right or wrong only grey? The Context was — the knot tied wrongly - period. There are right ways to tie a knot used for a rope swing and wrong ways. From this — one discovers that right and wrong does exist.
B. W. wrote: What makes the knot makers take responsibility as well as your self?
Proinsias wrote: A knot maker will set certain standards. If they fail to meet these standards they tend to take responsibility. It's not God making them take responsibility, if you are knot maker and your knots do not do what they claim to do you will not earn a living from making knots.
So the knot makers can tie knots wrongly???
How can that be????
B. W. wrote: Explaining that one is not perfect does what? Justifies wrong behavior as okay does it not? Why do people make excuses for immoral behavior by citing that there are no set standards for morality that can convict one of wrong?
Proinsias wrote: Are you perfect? if not then, by this reasoning, you are justifying any behavoiur you indulge and view as wrong as okay.
By the works of the Law — no flesh will be justified. By the Law comes the knowledge of sin and what makes sin wrong and from this we discover that we need someone to save us from ourselves — from our own imperfections. In fact, the Christian messages can be summed up as: learning how to be free from one sin one day at a time - Discovering the Goodness of God as a reality not a matter of grey dullness.
B. W. wrote: Therefore, why make excuses, (like no one is perfect) if there are no behaviors or deeds that are objectively morally right or objectively morally wrong?
Proinsias wrote: Not being perfect is not an excuse. It's about falling short of human set standards, which are not perfect either. Killing someone is not something I plan on doing but if I do it I would hope I had a fair amount of explanation as to why. Not to excuse myself but so as others may understand why I ended up there. Saying premeditative murder is wrong doesn't make any difference - leave that to God. Trying to understand why people end up doing it and what we can do to prevent it may make a difference, again understanding context as opposed to saying 'right' or 'wrong'.
What inside you sets a compass marker that tells you that premeditated murder is wrong — what is it inside you that stops you from doing this act?
B. W. wrote: There is something outside of ourselves that teaches what is objectively morally right and what is objectively morally wrong. What makes you, or the official knot maker, feel remorse and take responsibility for there actions and failures? If no objective moral standards exist — remorse and responsibility are simply spurious illusions.
Proinsias wrote: I would say the knot maker would feel remorse if they were trying to provide a knot that wouldn't slip or shed and did….If remorse and responsibility are spurious illusions, which they may well be, I'm not going to value them any differently. If the love I have for my family is an illusion, it doesn't lose its value for me.
Again the knot maker — simply tied the knot wrongly. As matter of fact, how can you assign value to your love if values do not exist? ...... Values also guide us and teach us what makes values right or wrong…Do you take responsibility for what you value if values do not really exist?
B. W. wrote: Whose morality is morally good? Mother Teresa's? or Mao Tse-Tung's? Saint Francis of Assisi? Or Joseph Stalin's? Gandhi's or Adolph Hitler's?
Proinsias wrote: All on a grey scale. Not black or white. I don't know much about St.Francis but both Mother Teresa and Ghandi had some morals I find questionable.
If there are no rights or wrongs,
then why do you find some of Mother Theresa and Ghandi's morals wrong? What makes them wrong — questionable - if all morals are merely subjective?
B. W. wrote: A tree is known by its fruit it produces, not by anything else. The fruit it produces is either good or bad. Eat bad fruit, you become sick or could even die.
Proinsias wrote: That's not really true though is it? There are plenty of trees which do not produce fruit which are known.
Fruit isn't good or bad, it's just fruit - I was surprised to find recently just how narrow the definition of fruit is. If you eat fruit that your body can't handle it doesn't make it bad fruit - you've eaten fruit that makes you sick or kills you. If you eat a knot and die it doesn't make it a bad knot.
Do trees reproduce after their own kind? How do they do that? By their fruit, whether it be kernel, pine cone, nut, flower, apple, etc… A Tree is known by its fruit and its fruit can be either bad or good as well
Question:
Does an apple tree produce oranges?
There are absolutes even in nature! Yet, it take the brilliance of a human being to deny the empirical evidences of absolutes in nature and mathematics.
Do you really take responsibility for denying such absolutes? What of the airport control tower staff if they denied responsibility for providing absolute flight paths for in and outbound flights?
Question: Does a pear tree produce olives?
B. W. wrote:Which is better to eat - food poisoned produce or fresh good produce?
Proinsias wrote: That's a pretty loaded question. Which is better? the one with good in the description.
Why — if there are no rights or wrongs, then how can you say one is good and the other is not?
B. W. wrote: Answer — so you like living in contradiction? For a matter to be true, an opposite must exist. Living life in accord to contradiction would be what then?
Proinsias wrote: I don't feel like I'm living in a contradiction. More a sea of grey where nothing is obviously this or that.
Then how can you not say that food that is food poisoned is bad for you if all is only grey?
Some things are obvious — did you wife give birth to your daughter or a tree? Things are obviously
this or that.
Bad food poisons — nothing grey about this except maybe the moldy patches on the spinach or meat…
B. W. wrote: People discover that wrong exist (such as premeditated murder) and such wrong crosses all cultural barriers and norms when this wrong is afflicted upon their loved ones and yes, even themselves…their people… the wrongness of it is discovered … absolute wrong exists…despite all cultural variables and justification. The is no neutrality in the matter.
Proinsias wrote: It doesn't really cross all cultural barriers. The death penalty, human sacrifice, abortion, Islamic honor killing, war, are all premeditative murder in some sense. There maybe no neutrality but there is a sea of confusion.
How do you define which of these are wrong? Have them done unto you or your family, or your country. Was 911 wrong? Islam's support of honor killings — wrong?
Objective morality deciphers what is truly right and truly wrong from midst this sea of confusion you cite. No grey… Thru Objective morality comes the knowledge of sin. We all need the Savior — Jesus Christ…
B. W. wrote: Eastern philosophy would rather leave disease alone, neutral, non-effort is best, as it justifies benigness. Other religious systems only seek to cover and mask the symptoms leaving the disease free to run its full course. Christianity removes the disease through a living power far greater than our own human power, healing us…
Proinsias wrote: I wouldn't say that eastern philosophy would rather leave disease alone. Eastern medicine is heavily rooted in its philosophy, the 5 elements, chi, prevention before cure etc. Western medicine is based upon curing identified issues, Christianity also creates an issues that needs to cured - we need to be saved and this is how to do it.
Why does it seek to cure physical disease if there are no rights or wrongs? However, the disease I spoke about in my example was the disease of sin. Only Christ Jesus offers the cure for this. All others ways offer only ointments and temporary suaves that leaves the infection inside. This infection is our own moral subjective relativity… which creates the issues of sin...
B. W. wrote: Again a contradiction: For ones subjective moral scale to be neither true or false is a contradiction because it means that this makes the subjective scale of neitherness an absolute standard in and of itself.
Proinsias wrote: My subjective morality is neither tall nor short, black nor white. This does not create a contradiction, it does not make it an absolute. Just as my taste in music, tea or wine is not true or false does not make my taste in music, tea or wine an absolute. Again as we attach more significance to morals than musical tastes does not mean they need to be true or false, no matter how much we may like them to be.
Things like tea, music, or wine do not involve morality. Comparing theses as examples to morality is in itself a contradiction.
But matters of life and death, poisoned food, premeditated murder, adultery, swindling lies, stealing, coveting another's things to take them, failing your loved ones, all have consequences, etc, these involve moral judgments: and through these judgments come consequences and from these consequences we learn that objective morality exist.
Issues of Morality have nothing to do with tea —
unless it has been poisoned…
B. W. wrote: For something to be true means that there is something false. There is no neutrality. Again — you attach values to your own set of values but fail to see how these teach you, or should I say, leads you to discover that like objective reality — Objective Morality exists.
Proinsias wrote: If there is true there is false. If there isn't a true then the point vanishes.
Does a peach tree produce cabbage? True or false?
B. W. wrote:Since God has emotions, and since we were created as a lower reflection of his image and likeness, having emotions ourselves, we discover that love exist because God exist. Without our creator, we would not be here. Objective reality of your own daughter standing before you, or her as an infant sleeping upon your chest, proves she exist. The love you feel for her teaches that love is indeed a real tangible thing.
Proinsias wrote: If we were created there is a creator, if we weren't there isn't. I have no knowledge of the objective reality of my daughter, I have my subjective experience. The feelings I have for my daughter change constantly, maybe they are approaching objective love maybe they are are not - what matters to me is the relationship, I don't think that relationship has an objective bridge.
Through your subjective experience you felt your daughter's reality —
she exists.
As a matter of fact - how can you have relationship if
relationship is not an objective you have?
If relationship is, as you state, what matters to you — then the objective reality of that relationship proves that relationships are possible and if possible, then one with God is also possible through Jesus Christ.
Why delay?
You and I are more than an bag of subjective chemical reactions creating emotions and subjectiviness. God designed us in a specific manner so we can learn to relate with him and one another in an objective empirically existing world.
B. W. wrote: There does not need to be people for numbers to exist. One Moon, One Earth, One Mars in our solar system equals three distinct objects. Math helps us understand that objective reality exist and if objective reality exist - then so does objective morality.
Proinsias wrote: I disagree. People create numbers and labels. There are no distinct objects without a subject to label them. Objectivity means nothing without subjectivity, they are complementary.
If there were no people and our solar system existed, how many objects would be between the earth and the sun?
It does not matter if people create numbers and assign labels — objects exist and need no human to count them to make them exist. Our being able to number and label things only points out a design. Humanity was charged to label and take care of things by God (Genesis 2:19-20)! We still do this today. For example:
Why does science have scientist?
We human beings exist and can count and label things — and through such we discover…objective reality.
If objects can be named and labeled then objective reality exist and if objective reality exists then objective morality exist as well helping one to discover what is dangerous and what is not and the whys things are wrong or right…preparing one for an eternal design…
-
-
-
)