From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Sep 23 2005 - 23:13:01 BST
> >[Arlo]
> > > Only if that person ever stated that he followed "Christian morals". I
> > > certainly don't.
> >
> >You don't? How come you frequently cite the Bible and talk so much about
> >the virtue of compassion?
>
> I seem to recall mentioning it only to combat the hypocrisy of others who
> taut it and ignore it at the same time. Can you point out a time when I
> cited or talked about it outside of such a discussion?
Well, I don't think it's necessary to pour over all your past posts. Do
you deny that you consider Christian moral principles worthy of following
in your own dealings with others?
> > > But I believe the great majority of mores professed by
> > > Jesus has been the same as those professed by nearly every religious
> > > code or faith in history. Whether they were divinely inspired, or
> > > metaphorical analogues that emerged out of DQ, is really beside the
> > > point to me.
> >
> >What gives them their authority then? Haven't we agreed that everybody
> >saying something is right doesn't necessarily make it so?
> There is the inner compulsion to live a certain way, and to follow certain
> "morals"
Now that's interesting. Does "inner compulsion" translate as "instinct."
If so, how to explain terrorists, headhunters and the like..
> And then there is using power to exert that "morality" on others.
Do you mean the power of government? Do not all governments appeal to
morality to justify their power?
> To this end, social existence makes such exertions impossible to ignore.
> However, pubic discourse and open debate are supposed to be the best we can
> do to make the system dynamic and fair to all individual moral stances.
> Whether this works in practice or if its just theory is another matter.
Open debate, democracy and guaranteed individual rights, while not
perfect, is the best was to maintain "social existence" I agree.
> You know, of course, that I don't have a problem with Christians who
> practice Christianity from bringing that "morality" into the public
> argument. What I mind are people who manipulate and use the message as a
> means of exerting power over others while dodging allowing power to be
> exerted on themselves. This is a dishonesty to any "authority", and only
> evidences that one is more concerned with "power" than "Christian
> morality".
I agree that those who espouse freedom from coercion ought to apply that
freedom to others as well as themselves. That I think is the libertarian
message.
> In short, if you truly desire a Judeo-Christian firmament to our laws, you
> should argue the truth of what that is, not just select the bits that are
> "convenient" to you. If that is what you wish to do, you aren't really
> appealing to any "authority" other than your own self-interest and desire
> for power.
Again I ask, do you not find the Judeo-Christian morality a basis for your
own actions? What other basis would you suggest we use?
> As for what gives them "authority", supposing you mean a particular code
> such as "killing is wrong", I wonder why you need an "authority" at all?
> Does all morality come from the Commandments of Divine Beings? I could, and
> I bet many others on this list could do so better, make a sound argument
> within secular rationalism why "killing is wrong" without an appeal to a
> Mysterious Supernatural Being Who Says So.
Is secular rationalism your answer for the basis of a moral code? Or the
authority of past practices. Or a moral instinct? Or some combination?
In sum, how do you decide that some things are better than others?
Platt
> > > In other words, one does not have to be a "Christian" to think that
> > > feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless, and healing the sick are
> > > High Quality Social Morals. But these are the Three Fundamental Aspects
> > > to Christian Morals. And pointing out to those who would use "Christian
> > > morals" to oppose gay marriage, but deliberately scoff at doing what
> > > the vast majority of this book taught, well... that's just calling a
> > > hypocrit a hypocrit.
> > >
> > > You ask me to condemn hypocracy within the MOQ. I'm frankly perplexed
> > > at this. Perhaps you could start the conversation by pointing me at
> > > points you think says the MOQ doesn't find hypocracy low value, or even
> > > finds it high value.
> >
> >If you're perplexed I'm perplexed. You claim hypocrisy is immoral, but I
> >can find no MOQ justification for your claim. That's why I asked. Maybe
> >it's immoral at the intellectual level because it violates intellectual
> >integrity. But, that's a stretch because thinking doesn't necessarily
> >translate into to social behavior. So I wonder. If someone is guilty of
> >hypocrisy, what is she guilty of?
>
> Alright, then explain to me why "lying" is bad according to the MOQ? Is it?
>
> Arlo
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 24 2005 - 03:09:56 BST