Substitutionary sacrifical atonement: Is it moral?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Bro, it was a practice in reductio ad absurdum to show the self-refuting nature of Moral Relativism. Something cannot both be true and false in the same contextual application.

Yes it can, and I just showed you how. Sure, some things like the example provided in your link says that a chair can't be both wooden and not wooden at the same time is true. But that doesn't apply to morality, not when different cultures have different views on what is moral and what isn't.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Hydroman

 

Why is that moral?

Because they are feeding themselves and their families? Who knows what they are thinking when they do that? Wait, you are talking about the cannibalism thing right? I mean, to me, it's the same as fighting a battle and then killing all the babies that belonged to your enemy. That's just as bad as eating someone, imo.

edit on 12-4-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)

I still don't see where the morality comes in here...

They're feeding their families... are we to assume theres no better way?

Is this canibalism ritualistic?

Bro, it was a practice in reductio ad absurdum to show the self-refuting nature of Moral Relativism. Something cannot both be true and false in the same contextual application.

Why didn't you just say that then... that "practical example" hurt my brain...

Originally posted by Akragon
Because "Gods people" didn't get that commandment from God...

Who'd they get it from?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Akragon
Because "Gods people" didn't get that commandment from God...

Who'd they get it from?

Idk... wasn't God.

Likely the author of the book...

Originally posted by Akragon
Idk... wasn't God.

Likely the author of the book...

and he got his commands from where?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, we are born nude.

It's not moral to walk the beach nude?

People can be nude, that's how we are born.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Akragon
Idk... wasn't God.

Likely the author of the book...

and he got his commands from where?

Again i don't know... The instances in the bible where you can read "he commands" so and so are to be slaughtered was not God giving the command...

God has no reason to harm his children... they harm themselves enough as it is...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, we are born nude.

It's not moral to walk the beach nude?

People can be nude, that's how we are born.

Ok. In your opinion it is moral. In other opinions, it IS NOT moral. That's why there are laws against it in the United States. Where did that come from? Cultural differences. Relativism.

reply to post by Akragon

Why didn't you just say that then... that "practical example" hurt my brain...

"Practical Example" didn't clue you in friend?

You might not have been following the conversation. We've had this exercise in absurdity because some folks wish to challenge the self-refuting nature of Moral Relativism instead of accepting that and moving on to the next point.

Not naming names though.

Originally posted by Akragon
Again i don't know... The instances in the bible where you can read "he commands" so and so are to be slaughtered was not God giving the command...

God has no reason to harm his children... they harm themselves enough as it is...

You would be in disagreement with a majority of christians.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Akragon
Again i don't know... The instances in the bible where you can read "he commands" so and so are to be slaughtered was not God giving the command...

God has no reason to harm his children... they harm themselves enough as it is...

You would be in disagreement with a majority of christians.

haha...

No comment...

Edit: Who knows though... 34k different flavors... maybe one of them got it right

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
You might not have been following the conversation. We've had this exercise in absurdity because some folks wish to challenge the self-refuting nature of Moral Relativism instead of accepting that and moving on to the next point.

Not naming names though.

Where did I self-refute? When different cultures have different views of morality, it doesn't self-refute. I just showed you that with the example of walking the beach nude.

Since it is ok to be nude, go to work nude. We were born that way. See if everyone there thinks you did a moral thing...

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, we are born nude.

It's not moral to walk the beach nude?

People can be nude, that's how we are born.

Ok. In your opinion it is moral. In other opinions, it IS NOT moral. That's why there are laws against it in the United States. Where did that come from? Cultural differences. Relativism.

OIC, non sequitur fallacy. We are not equal to God. For humans it's not immoral, we are born that way. Some people appeal to God and in his eyes it's immoral because He's said to cover oneself. He has no peers.

Non-Sequitur Fallacy

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
OIC, non sequitur fallacy. We are not equal to God.

Where did I mention anything about god? I don't even know what god is.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
For humans it's not immoral, we are born that way. Some people appeal to God and in his eyes it's immoral because He's said to cover oneself. He has no peers.

Again, go to work nude. It should be ok because it is moral. Right????

Where was the Non Sequitor? I stated that morality is different in varying cultures. I showed that with the nude example.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
You might not have been following the conversation. We've had this exercise in absurdity because some folks wish to challenge the self-refuting nature of Moral Relativism instead of accepting that and moving on to the next point.

Not naming names though.

Where did I self-refute? When different cultures have different views of morality, it doesn't self-refute. I just showed you that with the example of walking the beach nude.

Since it is ok to be nude, go to work nude. We were born that way. See if everyone there thinks you did a moral thing...

I didn't say you did, I said Moral relativism is self-refuting. I showed that and you affirned that with the cannibal example. You said it would be immoral to you and moral to the cannibals.

Not true, it's also immoral for them, they do not have to eat humans. Many other people get along just fine without eating humans.

Murder is wrong for all men, because it's a law given to all men by an authority higher than man.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Not true, it's also immoral for them, they do not have to eat humans. Many other people get along just fine without eating humans.

Again, do you understand their culture? It is immoral to you, doesn't mean it is to them. So simple a cannibal could understand it.

Same thing with the nude example. Just because it is moral for you to go around nude, doesn't mean it is for other people.

reply to post by Hydroman


Alright bro, go chill with some cannibals, when they eat you remember it's not immoral for them to murder you, just immoral in your world, not theirs.

Next question?

:bnghd:

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Hydroman

 

Alright bro, go chill with some cannibals, when they eat you remember it's not immoral for them to murder you, just immoral in your world, not theirs.

That's why I wouldn't hang with them.

Since it is moral to be nude, go to work nude. Chill with your christian friends in the nude. You were all born that way. I dare you. No, I double dog dare you. Now you must do it. Just don't double dog dare me to hang with cannibals.

Ancient cultures used sacrifices in order to bring good seasons of crops in the spring more than they sacrificed someone else to atone for their sins. Sometimes it got a little more hardcore, like the Mayans, they sacrificed someone to keep their God from killing them all.

Neither culture knew any better, and so from their perspective, the sacrifices would be considered moral - sacrifice one person to save many. They often treated the person to be sacrificed with great respect and special treatment until the day came.

Originally posted by darkbake
Ancient cultures used sacrifices in order to bring good seasons of crops in the spring more than they sacrificed someone else to atone for their sins. Sometimes it got a little more hardcore, like the Mayans, they sacrificed someone to keep their God from killing them all.

How'd that work out for them?