Are you serious Jaltus? Do you not know what I mean about your disruptiveness?
Again.... continually claiming that someone is NOT responding when they ARE RESPONDING is disruptive!!!! Or at very least deceitful. (ironic based on the topic).
Again.... continually claiming that someone is NOT responding when they ARE RESPONDING is disruptive!!!! Or at very least deceitful. (ironic based on the topic).
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Was it an untruth?
As you wish (can't say as I blame you) but I certainly cannot guarantee I will not respond to you as you respond to others.
LOL! Jaltus be careful what you ask for you might just get it!
Good job Sheepdog!
OK... there is something I have to get off my chest. I realize Jaltus has thrown in the towel but this simply MUST be said.
Jaltus you repeatedly claimed I was NOT responding to Luke 12 even though I had.
In fact I even decided to respond in a different way so you could no longer make your false claim that I hadn't responded when I wrote (way back on page 22)....
Not only did you NOT respond to my response but you CONTINUED to claim I hadn't responded in the first place!!!!!
Furthermore.....
I re-posted the above post on page 29 after you once again claimed I hadn't responded to Luke 12, but still no response from you.
It appears to me that much of your argument is based on Luke 12 so I think its only fair you respond to my assertion that...
Luke 12 in NO WAY relates to a specific situation where a wicked force can be thwarted by a lie or by deception (same thing). Also Luke 12 in NO WAY relates to a specific situation in where other lives are at stake i.e., The Hebrew midwives, the hiding Jewish family or the crazed man who wants to kill your kids.
Luke 12 does not relate to these dilemmas does it Jaltus?
Jaltus you repeatedly claimed I was NOT responding to Luke 12 even though I had.
In fact I even decided to respond in a different way so you could no longer make your false claim that I hadn't responded when I wrote (way back on page 22)....
You never responded to my response did you Jaltus?
Not only did you NOT respond to my response but you CONTINUED to claim I hadn't responded in the first place!!!!!
Furthermore.....
I re-posted the above post on page 29 after you once again claimed I hadn't responded to Luke 12, but still no response from you.
It appears to me that much of your argument is based on Luke 12 so I think its only fair you respond to my assertion that...
Luke 12 in NO WAY relates to a specific situation where a wicked force can be thwarted by a lie or by deception (same thing). Also Luke 12 in NO WAY relates to a specific situation in where other lives are at stake i.e., The Hebrew midwives, the hiding Jewish family or the crazed man who wants to kill your kids.
Luke 12 does not relate to these dilemmas does it Jaltus?
Dee Dee this IS a question about lying. You and Knight have brought up the question about lying about being a Christian when your life is in danger. I have used the issue of denying Christ as a specific lie. I have also used the case of your life being in danger as being a specific event. I am trying to get to the basic issue of your definition of absolute morality being the same response to the same situation.
Your quote:
Now I am trying to tie down an “identical situation” as you described and a specific moral action “lie about being a Christian” so we can discuss your definition of absolute morality. Can you tell me why this would not be an “identical situation” with a specific lie that would not apply to every person? In other words I am trying to get as absolute as possible.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Two compliments in one thread Jaltus... Egad man you are beside yourself.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Hank:
I am planning on going way back and addressing some of the much earlier issues that got dropped, but with regards to your last post... do you think that just one common denominator, an identical situation makes?? Come on!! Knight gave a specific moral situation, the home invader... that does not transfer over to every imaginable situation in which someone's life would be in danger. Secondly, you have missed the focus of Knight's hypothetical which focused primarily on protecting his family, not his own life.
Lastly, and I meant to get to this with you sooner.... besides moral philoshpy (of which you have in a roundabout way conceded you are without knowledge of the definition for relativism), I am of course basing my lying can be rightoues position on the Biblical text. You deny that anything can be objectively based on the Biblical text which has caused me to puase to consider the advisibility of continuing to debate you on the subject since we have no common ground to appeal. So I decided that I will (as I get opportunity - I am sorting through where I can wisely invest my time in responding) finish out the philosophical loose ends, but then without an understanding that the Biblical text actually means something that we can discover, we might be at an impassable roadblock.
I am planning on going way back and addressing some of the much earlier issues that got dropped, but with regards to your last post... do you think that just one common denominator, an identical situation makes?? Come on!! Knight gave a specific moral situation, the home invader... that does not transfer over to every imaginable situation in which someone's life would be in danger. Secondly, you have missed the focus of Knight's hypothetical which focused primarily on protecting his family, not his own life.
Lastly, and I meant to get to this with you sooner.... besides moral philoshpy (of which you have in a roundabout way conceded you are without knowledge of the definition for relativism), I am of course basing my lying can be rightoues position on the Biblical text. You deny that anything can be objectively based on the Biblical text which has caused me to puase to consider the advisibility of continuing to debate you on the subject since we have no common ground to appeal. So I decided that I will (as I get opportunity - I am sorting through where I can wisely invest my time in responding) finish out the philosophical loose ends, but then without an understanding that the Biblical text actually means something that we can discover, we might be at an impassable roadblock.
Hi Dee Dee
DD you gave me a definition of absolute morality which I didn’t agree with but was willing to work with. All I am trying to do is establish an example of what you defined. I am willing to work with you on finding an example using something that you agreed was not immoral, the denying of Christ. I tried to use a very specific instance, denying Christ to save your life which you agree with. Are you now saying it is only when you are trying to save your life because it is a home invader?
Okay are you saying it is not moral to deny Christ to save your life but it is moral to deny Christ to save your family’s life because of a home invader?
If you think that you misunderstood me. I did concede that I would agree to your definition of relativism so we could go on to debate the issue. I still believe your definition of morality is relativism. Besides you gave me the definition of relativism. What is it that you now think I don’t have knowledge of? Is it too complicated for me to understand your definition?
Dee Dee you have used a definition of relativism where you cannot define an absolute. There is no line where you can say this is the place where the denying starts or stops so to speak relative to the issue we are discussing. The same would be for any issue. I’m not trying to be sarcastic when I say that I was pretty sure you would take the route of using this excuse if you got tied down to producing a definite point where the denying started.
You have been debating for two days with very little time invested on my comments but with those that believe the Biblical text actually means something as you put it. Not that I don’t but not like you do. It is interesting to debate the issues but if you think you are discovering anything or changing anyone’s mind I think you are mistaken as evidenced by the debates that go on here at TOL. I have seen the Bible debated backwards and forwards and never seen anyone change their opinions of their basic beliefs. I thought you were open to debating the issues. I have been in a few where Knight jumped in, made a few insults about my comments, responded a few times until I tried to get specific and then never responded again. But I thought you might be interested in debating some of the issues you agreed with Knight on. If not, you seem like a very nice person so good luck and I’m sure I’ll be talking to you if you hang around.
DD you gave me a definition of absolute morality which I didn’t agree with but was willing to work with. All I am trying to do is establish an example of what you defined. I am willing to work with you on finding an example using something that you agreed was not immoral, the denying of Christ. I tried to use a very specific instance, denying Christ to save your life which you agree with. Are you now saying it is only when you are trying to save your life because it is a home invader?
Okay are you saying it is not moral to deny Christ to save your life but it is moral to deny Christ to save your family’s life because of a home invader?
If you think that you misunderstood me. I did concede that I would agree to your definition of relativism so we could go on to debate the issue. I still believe your definition of morality is relativism. Besides you gave me the definition of relativism. What is it that you now think I don’t have knowledge of? Is it too complicated for me to understand your definition?
Dee Dee you have used a definition of relativism where you cannot define an absolute. There is no line where you can say this is the place where the denying starts or stops so to speak relative to the issue we are discussing. The same would be for any issue. I’m not trying to be sarcastic when I say that I was pretty sure you would take the route of using this excuse if you got tied down to producing a definite point where the denying started.
You have been debating for two days with very little time invested on my comments but with those that believe the Biblical text actually means something as you put it. Not that I don’t but not like you do. It is interesting to debate the issues but if you think you are discovering anything or changing anyone’s mind I think you are mistaken as evidenced by the debates that go on here at TOL. I have seen the Bible debated backwards and forwards and never seen anyone change their opinions of their basic beliefs. I thought you were open to debating the issues. I have been in a few where Knight jumped in, made a few insults about my comments, responded a few times until I tried to get specific and then never responded again. But I thought you might be interested in debating some of the issues you agreed with Knight on. If not, you seem like a very nice person so good luck and I’m sure I’ll be talking to you if you hang around.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
I only quoted this last sentece for a good reason.... you took my last post to you all wrong, and got somewhat in a huff. I told you I was going to respond to you, and I will. I only stated some misgivings I have regarding something you said about the Biblical text in another thread. If I misunderstood what you said, you can correct me, but I don't think I have. You basially reduced the meaning of the Biblical text to a subjective encounter with the Spirit, which ironically enough, makes your idea of absolutes that you think you believe are deriving from such a subjective encounter, relativistic!! For you have no grounds from which at all to say I am Biblically wrong, for my subjective encounter with the Spirit may just be different from yours, which is allowable in your worldview, thus, you are arguing for relativism (by definition) if we take your Biblical philosphy to its logical extent.
I can assure I am planning on "hanging around" so to speak.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Really? Well then how unfortunate for you. I have seen it (there are people that I have debated on eschatology that have done a complete turnaround - to various levels of changing their minds) and in fact, through debates and similar forums I have radically changed some of my core beliefs, and am willing to do so again since I am more interested in what is correct than in winning every debate. If somehow could ever prove me wrong in my passion area - eschatology - I would conform myself to the facts then revealed. Of course I passionately believe I am not wrong, but at the same time recognize that I am a sinful human being who may be wrong, funny how that works right? (thanks Jamey!!)
Hank,
If you think minds have not been changed, then you have not read the exchanges on here. Something that someone said got me to change my mind on using the Lord's name in vain.
Dee Dee was thinking about taking a different stance on denying Jesus.
For that matter, I have seen a unitarian become orthodox on these boards.
If you think minds have not been changed, then you have not read the exchanges on here. Something that someone said got me to change my mind on using the Lord's name in vain.
Dee Dee was thinking about taking a different stance on denying Jesus.
For that matter, I have seen a unitarian become orthodox on these boards.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Accoridng the Jaltus, you can decieve someone as long as you manipulate the truth to do it. The consummate politician's ploy.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
I object to the wording once again. I was considering taking a different stance on the morality of ever LYING about denying Christ in certain circumstances. It is unfair to any opposing view to paint them in broad sensationalistic strokes like that Jaltus.
And let me again make it abundantly clear, if I did change my view it would not be because LYING IS ALWAYS WRONG it would be because I would be convinced by the Biblical text or clear implications of the Biblical text that this is an inviolate subject despite any circumstances.
That is why I am objecting to this particular example being paraded about by Hank. It begs the question of the underlying issue, and I refuse to get led by the nose like that. The subject for debate here is whether or not LYING IS EVER RIGHTEOUS. Even if someone were to prove (and I don't think they have but rather have misued Matthew 10 AND Luke 12 for this purpose - which I may still comment upon - taking an entirely different, though, complementary tact to Knight), that there are subjects which are inviolable, and can never be lied about that would not prove that LYING IS NEVER RIGHTEOUS WHICH IS THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. So... I am not going to use this particular scenario as the showpiece for this debate as it is generating more heat than light.
I am not a stone wall in any issue, including my passion - eschatology. I can always be convinced. I am glad Jaltus that you can recognize that. Debating stone walls is useless unless you think there are enough lurkers to let the discussion have some hidden value.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Hank:
No I objected to your usage of the term of relativism. You had misdefined it, and then attempted to pin your misdefinition upon me.
Since we had defined this so long ago, I am going to retread this ground. My source is Dr. Francis J. Beckwith, Associate Professor of philosophy, culture, and law at the Trinity Graduate School (from his book co-authored with Gregory Koukl – Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air)…
Moral realism is a type of subjectivism [much like your take on the Biblical text – comments min]. Moral relativism teaches that when it comes to morals, that which is ethically right or wrong, people do their own thing. Ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups who hold them.…. Relativism does not require a particular behavior for everyone on similar moral situation. When faced with exactly the same ethical situation, I might choose one thing, but you may choose the opposite. No universal rules apply to everyone. Moral relativism is contrasted with moral absolutism, which can mean different things. Minimally, moral absolutism holds that a moral rule is true regardless of whether anyone believes it.
Beckwith goes on to prove that relativism is not really an ethical system at all, but implodes entirely upon itself. It is obvious that what Knight and I have been saying is not relativism whatsoever. Beckwith’s comments show the wrongness of your earlier statement:
And this is the problem, which have labeled an “excuse.” I am debating the Bible and what it tells us about morality. Otherwise you may have an absolute morality, but it is one of your own subjective making, and I am not interested in that.
When I brought up the Romans 13 issue you said,
Now some disclaimers may be in order. I apologize if I have unnecessarily offended you. Jaltus and I have more of a history together which allows more ease in our jousting, which history you and I have not yet built up. It gets hard to switch gears. Plus, as you may have read, I was afflicted with a terrific headache last night, and it still has not gone away (Jaltus, take the pin out of the doll please).
No I objected to your usage of the term of relativism. You had misdefined it, and then attempted to pin your misdefinition upon me.
It is not my definition, Hank, it is the definition. You are doing a bait and switch where on one hand you say that you will accept the correct definition, and then turn around and still say that you think what I have said is relativism, based upon your erroneous definition. That is not then accepting the definition… it is grudgingly saying that you will concede that I have a different definition but continuing to use your own erroneous one. That will not do.
Since we had defined this so long ago, I am going to retread this ground. My source is Dr. Francis J. Beckwith, Associate Professor of philosophy, culture, and law at the Trinity Graduate School (from his book co-authored with Gregory Koukl – Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air)…
Moral realism is a type of subjectivism [much like your take on the Biblical text – comments min]. Moral relativism teaches that when it comes to morals, that which is ethically right or wrong, people do their own thing. Ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups who hold them.…. Relativism does not require a particular behavior for everyone on similar moral situation. When faced with exactly the same ethical situation, I might choose one thing, but you may choose the opposite. No universal rules apply to everyone. Moral relativism is contrasted with moral absolutism, which can mean different things. Minimally, moral absolutism holds that a moral rule is true regardless of whether anyone believes it.
Beckwith goes on to prove that relativism is not really an ethical system at all, but implodes entirely upon itself. It is obvious that what Knight and I have been saying is not relativism whatsoever. Beckwith’s comments show the wrongness of your earlier statement:
The fact that I agree that there are absolute standards for morality means exactly that Hank. It doesn’t matter whether or not we agree on what that standard is, the fact is that neither of us are relativists.
And this is the problem, which have labeled an “excuse.” I am debating the Bible and what it tells us about morality. Otherwise you may have an absolute morality, but it is one of your own subjective making, and I am not interested in that.
When I brought up the Romans 13 issue you said,
Exactly, and it is “okay” FOR EVERYONE IN THE SAME SITUATION. It is not okay dependant solely upon the opinion or subjective experience of the moral player.
Well that pesky Biblical text belies you. It gives two examples of moral lies. You then must say that you feel that Corrie Ten Boom was immoral in lying about hiding Jews to save them from the Holocaust. You must say that, and frankly, that is icky.
Now some disclaimers may be in order. I apologize if I have unnecessarily offended you. Jaltus and I have more of a history together which allows more ease in our jousting, which history you and I have not yet built up. It gets hard to switch gears. Plus, as you may have read, I was afflicted with a terrific headache last night, and it still has not gone away (Jaltus, take the pin out of the doll please).
Where? I can't find it. Can't you just repost it? Here I will do the set-up for you....
It appears to me that much of your argument is based on Luke 12 so I think its only fair you respond to my assertion that...
Luke 12 in NO WAY relates to a specific situation where a wicked force can be thwarted by a lie or by deception (same thing). Also Luke 12 in NO WAY relates to a specific situation in where other lives are at stake i.e., The Hebrew midwives, the hiding Jewish family or the crazed man who wants to kill your kids.
Luke 12 does not relate to these dilemmas does it Jaltus?