The Glade 4.0

Actually, that's just your opinion.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Strange.

How does morality stem from society if there is no societal impetus for one to construct a right v. wrong model?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

That's actually really interesting, especially to see the generational shift in action. It's also fascinating to consider the direction of the shift in light of the more general (apparent?) shift in social political trends.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

But there is. Modern social constructs require a moral framework and defintion of right vs wrong, social evolution creates the moral framework. Societies with differing moral frameworks will disolve into anarchy and cease to become profitable.

The tenants of christianity have not changed in 2000 years, but the social rules have changed, obviously something else is driving definitions of right and wrong than religion.

This is ridiculous. The Bible speaks of issues from many centuries past that are as relevant today as they were then. People ignored Biblical principles then; they ignore Biblical principles now. People go their own way and have from the beginning. But some people seek a path that leads them to a better place: some did in the beginning, and some still do today.

I reject your assertions totally, TheRiov. History shows you to be wrong.

His last statement is completely accurate Bery. That it is your opinion that the moral definitions of right and wrong are absolute and established by the Bible does not make it a fact, and it is a minority opinion, and history proves his statement to be accurate.

You are also incorrect, because you want to look at the symptom and label it the disease. History proves man's willingness to do that very thing. Recent history, I might add. American history in just the past few decades, for example.

That response makes no sense Bery...

1) What is it you think is the symptom, and which is the disease?

2) History proves man's willingness to do what? the symptom/disease statement, or related back to the point Riov made?

3) Are you limiting your comment to Riov to recent history, or assuming I am?

But moving past that indecipherable response, since I specifically said his last statement was correct, am I to understand that you think moral definitions are only driven by religion (and if I read your statement correctly, are only validated through the Bible?)?

Put simply, the disease is man not allowing the law of God to rule him, the symptom is all of the societal ills that come from that. The disease has been with us since the Garden, and the symptoms manifested right after. The disease remains today, and if you look at American society, so also the symptoms remain. Can you look at our present circumstances and say with a straight face that we live in a healthy, vibrant society?

But what would happen if tomorrow, every American woke up and decided to take a different path. Those who kill decided that "Today, I will treat those who revile me with respect, as a neighbor." And those who revile him would say, "Today, I am going to treat that man I revile with respect, as a neighbor."

What if every man decided that "Today, I will not steal, I will do my best to earn what I get." And what if every man who could decided to help him earn what he needed for that day, out of compassion and respect.

What if today, every man decided to treat his wife with honor and respect, and every wife decided to treat her husband with honor and respect. What if husbands and wives took their damaged relationships and both made a real effort at forgiveness and honesty and putting the needs of each other over their own selfish needs. What if every child decided to honor their mother and father and behave accordingly.

On and on and on, people choosing a different path....

And what if tomorrow, they got up and did it all again?

Yes, yes, yes, I know it won't happen. Because the disease remains, and so will the symptoms. And we all were infected at one point or another, and even those who seek to do things God's way stumble from time to time. We can only change it one person at a time, one decision at a time. But when enough people choose to take a different path, the society will change. Not the other way around as has been suggested.

Its ironic that you chose to respond to the comments you criticized with such an excellent rebuttal of your own objections.

You'll need to explain that one.

Ladas:

It's not worth it.

_________________

rofl

Eh, I'll just be blunt, Beryllin. You have disabled, quite intentionally it seems, the cognitive faculties necessary to engage in this conservation. Indeed, you have so sublimated your religious beliefs that you are incapable of seeing you quite honestly defeated your own position by indicating that individual behaviors patterns comprise the net of social normatives, not the morality of some entity that may or may not exist. And, were you half as aware of the conversation and history you're engaging as you pretend in your appeals, you would know, without question, that TheRiov's conflation of morality and social normatives is both philosophically and practically flawed. But, your responses to both Ladas and TheRiov presume the same thing: that morality and social norms are synonymous.

So, I'll simply repeat to Ladas: it's not worth it.

_________________

His statement is quite accurate. What he said was that something other than religion is driving morality. That does not mean religion is not also driving it.

It's not a mutually exclusive situation.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Oh, for crying out loud.....

Khross, you are not a stupid man, but you let your brain get in your way: Looking for the complex when the simple is correct.

What are you talking about?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

People looking at the symptoms and labeling them the disease. Kinda like saying the fever is the disease, when the patient actually has pneumonia.

Actually, if you look at the history of religion, you will see that religion has itself changed as well as society. The Christianity that is practiced today is NOT the Christianity of Jesus, or the Christianity of 500 years ago. While many and even most of the core teachings and sentiments are the same, there are many differences and a fracturing of Christianity based on beliefs.

One very obvious example of this is the Lutheran faith.

Duck down, Aizle! Incoming No-True-Scotsman Fallacy!

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Correct, but once again you're looking at a symptom of the disease. Why are these things changing? The change that occurs/is occurring is the symptom. Answer the question "Why?" and you get to the disease.

Aaah, I got it. Lutheran's aren't "real" Christians.

p.s. you nailed it Taly

Beryllin:

Do you understand the difference between social normatives and morality? Do you understand that the very brand of Moral Realism you preach (and before you go off half-cocked on Moral Realism, look it up, because I can guarantee you that it doesn't mean what you think it means) is a philosophical assumption that's been under debate since before 99.8% of the world even had an inkling your God might be a factor in existence?

_________________