Prove it.

Prove what? That Seneca had a better conception of mercy than Jesus?

Sure - let's compare their writings. oh, wait...

Or prove that Christianity is morally wanting? Hm. Should I use its incoherence? Systemic pedophilia? Inept dealings with the poor?

But if you mean, by "Prove it", that I should try to convince you, I've seen from your writing that incoherence is not one of your concerns. So I doubt I would be able to convince you.

I see that as being about you rather than about christianity.

Enough. This is too much like kicking a puppy.

Go ahead and believe in your religion. Whatever gets you through the night. But don't pretend to the moral high ground.

Yeah, I think I see your point now. I was referencing extreme versions. — Waya

Ah, I see. : )

We all adhere to some sort of moral creed, whether we acknowledge it. — Waya

Exactly.

And yours is an abomination. — Banno

And so is yours from my perspective. Where do we go from here?

You are not worth listening to on questions of morality. — Banno

I can say the same thing about you, where does that leave us?

You can't escape responsibility for your moral actions by being a moral coward. You decide to follow what you take to be god's commands, or not. — Banno

Sure, you can't. But that's not the question. The question is, who decides that God choosing to destroy all Creation is immoral? How do you reach that conclusion? If God is your rightful owner, and without Him, you would not even continue to exist, based on what can you claim that He lacks the RIGHT to choose when you live and when you die? Just because this doesn't appeal to your soft sensibilities?

ah, so you are a moral relativist, — Benkei

That's not being a moral relativist. I did not claim that X or Y is immoral at one time in history and not at another. I did, however, claim that stoning as punishment, or jail as punishment in the case of adultery are both just forms of punishment, and if society was structured such that these types of punishments were the norm and would not offend our sensibility, I would have no problem with it.

Imagine for a moment someone from the Ancient world coming into our modern world. They would quite honestly be horrified... they would ask what has become of humanity? Because they would interpret our way of living as effeminate, weak - they being used to cutting heads off, public beatings, etc. would have found our modern world a world for weak men and women, who cannot bear anything more.

Your reasoning is clearly erroneous. Even if, counterfactually, I grew up in an environment in which, as a result of cultural conditioning, I believed that stoning or slavery or genocide or torture or what-have-you was acceptable, it doesn't follow that it is acceptable, or that that is any good reason to doubt that it's not acceptable. (And as for why these things are not acceptable, I really shouldn't have to explain that to you). — Sapientia

Yes, and so too would Ancient Jew Sappy believe that, even if, counterfactually, he grew up in an environment in which, as a result of cultural conditioning, he believed that not stoning a vicious criminal was acceptable, it doesn't follow that it is acceptable, or that that is any good reason to doubt that it's acceptable. (and as for why these things are acceptable, he really shouldn't have to explain that to you)

Adultery is also quite natural. You're inconsistent. — frank

Why if adultery unnatural? Why not marriage itself?

In any case, I find the distinction natural and unnatural unhelpful. Anything that is, is natural. It's better, I think, to differentiate between caused by humans and not caused by humans. That's the basis on which being struck by lightning is bad luck and murder or stoning adulterers immoral.

stoning adulterers immoral — Benkei

There is nothing immoral about stoning adulterers if such is the law and everyone knows that the law is such.

That's not being a moral relativist. I did not claim that X or Y is immoral at one time in history and not at another. I did, however, claim that stoning as punishment, or jail as punishment in the case of adultery are both just forms of punishment, and if society was structured such that these types of punishments were the norm and would not offend our sensibility, I would have no problem with it. — Agustino

Relativism with regard to the appropriate punishment is still moral relativism. Apparently you think stoning is going a step too far, that's a different ethical rule and you accepted that in the past it wat appropriate but not now. It's textbook relativism.

There is nothing immoral about stoning adulterers if such is the law and everyone knows that the law is such. — Agustino

That something is legal does not mean it's moral.

Relativism with regard to the appropriate punishment is still moral relativism. — Benkei

If you think there are a range of appropriate (or just) punishments, does that make you a moral relativist?

That something is legal does not mean it's moral. — Benkei

Sure, I agree.

You can't escape responsibility for your moral actions by being a moral coward. You decide to follow what you take to be god's commands, or not.
— Banno
Sure, you can't. But that's not the question. The question is, who decides that God choosing to destroy all Creation is immoral? — Agustino

We each must decide. And making that choice is exactly the question.

stoning adulterers immoral
— Benkei
There is nothing immoral about stoning adulterers if such is the law and everyone knows that the law is such. — Agustino

Hiding behind the law is no better than hiding behind god.

If you think there are a range of appropriate (or just) punishments, does that make you a moral relativist? — Agustino

But you don't. You said one of them is barbaric. So relativism.

I wouldn't personally advocate for such laws because I'm not used to living in such a society (and I personally find it barbaric), but I can certainly imagine living back in the day and accepting such laws as part of the way the world is. — Agustino

Sure, I agree. — Agustino

Then explain to me what this meant

There is nothing immoral about stoning adulterers if such is the law and everyone knows that the law is such. — Agustino

Does it matter in a court of law if she was a mother, a prostitute, or a barbarian? — Waya

These distinctions have less to do with mercy than standing in the community, but absolutely, a showing of remorse will result in a lesser sentence than would defiance.

It would be a bad judge to let a criminal go, UNLESS someone offered to pay the price AND the person accepted it. — Waya

We're not talking about "letting someone go" as much as affecting one's sentence. At any rate, stoning an adulterer fails as being disproportionate, not just in lacking mercy. The bar against cruel and unusual punishments would also be violated.

That's not being a moral relativist. I did not claim that X or Y is immoral at one time in history and not at another. — Agustino

That's an incorrect definition of relativism. You're explicitely stating that the morality of stoning is relative to the moment in history when it occurred. Should it occur today, it's immoral, yesterday moral. It denies the absolute nature of morality, which would be that stoning is wrong whenever and where ever it occurs.

It's historically obvious that views on morality have shifted over time, as is it clear that moral values vary across the globe, but unless you're willing to state that there is only one right and wrong, you're a relativist.

You think adultery is absolutely wrong because God said so, and I suspect you would consider any society over the history of mankind that felt otherwise morally wrong, correct? That is absolutism, a concept you abandon when it comes to stoning.

Because they would interpret our way of living as effeminate, weak - they being used to cutting heads off, public beatings, etc. would have found our modern world a world for weak men and women, who cannot bear anything more. — Agustino

Should an ancient society exist alongside a modern one, the manly men ancients wouldn't scoff at the girly moderns, but would live in constant fear and dependence on them. The good old days weren't.

Yes, and so too would Ancient Jew Sappy believe that, even if, counterfactually, he grew up in an environment in which, as a result of cultural conditioning, he believed that not stoning a vicious criminal was acceptable, it doesn't follow that it is acceptable, or that that is any good reason to doubt that it's acceptable. (and as for why these things are acceptable, he really shouldn't have to explain that to you) — Agustino

It doesn't matter what an ancient hypothetical version of myself would have thought. If he would've thought that stoning is acceptable, then he would just be wrong. You can imitate what I say back to me, but the obvious difference is that stoning is not actually acceptable, as anyone with sound moral judgement would acknowledge, whatever rhetorical tricks you pull out of your sleeve.

We each must decide. And making that choice is exactly the question. — Banno

Why is your decision better than mine?

Should it occur today, it's immoral, yesterday moral. — Hanover

No, that's not what I said. Check below:

If you think there are a range of appropriate (or just) punishments, does that make you a moral relativist? — Agustino

I did, however, claim that stoning as punishment, or jail as punishment in the case of adultery are both just forms of punishment, and if society was structured such that these types of punishments were the norm and would not offend our sensibility, I would have no problem with it. — Agustino

I don't claim stoning would be immoral today. It wouldn't. It would just offend our sensibilities, but it would not be immoral. There is no moral relativism there at all. You and Benkei are both misreading what I've written.

You think adultery is absolutely wrong because God said so — Hanover

Yes, adultery is absolutely wrong, but not because God said so.

Should an ancient society exist alongside a modern one, the manly men ancients wouldn't scoff at the girly moderns, but would live in constant fear and dependence on them. The good old days weren't. — Hanover

Only due to technology, not because the ancient society wasn't more manly. They clearly were.

as anyone with sound moral judgement would acknowledge — Sapientia

So people 2000 years ago didn't have sound moral judgement? Only we have sound moral judgement, because our time is privileged over all other historical times. Don't you see how arrogant and ridiculous this is? Every historical era sees itself as the standard to compare everyone else to - I don't see any reason to prioritise today over yesterday - quite the contrary, we should do the very opposite, because very likely we have many blindspots that make us ignore the faults of the present (just like the Ancients ignored the faults of their present).

So people 2000 years ago didn't have sound moral judgement? — Agustino

A quick glance at ancient history should show that, no, they didn't.

Individuals with the intellectual and emotional maturity of anything more than an angsty 15 years old were the exception, not the rule.

Yes, adultery is absolutely wrong, but not because God said so. — Agustino

Why is it wrong?

I think it is. What more could there be?

I don't claim stoning would be immoral today. It wouldn't. It would just offend our sensibilities, but it would not be immoral. There is no moral relativism there at all. You and Benkei are both misreading what I've written. — Agustino

You said it was barbaric, which is a clear moral judgment. I didn't misread you, you're just back-pedaling because you can't admit you're wrong. Here is an overview as to how your use the word barbaric which proves it beyond a doubt:

Agustino says "barbaric"

:rofl:

Human Rights are the exact inverse of the Christian Decalogue — Agustino

Rather than inverses I think of them as a progression. Human rights is a more advanced form of the decalogue.

So people 2000 years ago didn't have sound moral judgement? — Agustino

If they thought that stoning was acceptable, then obviously not. That's a very good test for sound moral judgement. Thinking that stoning is acceptable is comparable to thinking that Earth is flat. It's a clear indication of extremely poor judgement.

If they thought that stoning was acceptable, then obviously not. That's a very good test for sound moral judgement. — Sapientia

By whose standard? We can prove that the Earth is not flat by experiment, but we cannot prove that stoning adulterers is wrong by experiment.

I think it is. What more could there be? — Banno

And I think it's not. Who is right?

You said it was barbaric, which is a clear moral judgment. — Benkei

I just checked my dictionary and barbaric does not mean immoral.

By whose standard? — Agustino

By the moral standard.

We can prove that the Earth is not [flat] by experiment, but we cannot prove that stoning adulterers is wrong by experiment. — Agustino

The latter shouldn't require proof. If you require it to be proved to you, then that's your moral failing.

And I think it's not. Who is right? — Agustino

He is, obviously. :rofl:

If you require it to be proved to you, then that's your moral failing. — Sapientia

Oh how quaint. I thought the same about you. If you require proof that stoning adulterers is moral, then that's your moral failing since you're too weak to do justice.

Oh how quaint. I thought the same about you. — Agustino

But the difference is that you're wrong and I'm right. And yes, I know you think the same about me in that respect also, but you're wrong about that too. And that. And that.

If you require proof that stoning adulterers is moral, then that's your moral failing since you're too weak to do justice. — Agustino

If you think that stoning is acceptable, then why should anyone here accept as credible anything you have to say about moral failings or justice? :rofl: