Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (14343)	5/25/2001 12:06:41 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I am arguing for an objective moral standard that is based on the Just character of God. I still am not hearing what difference it makes whether the architect of the moral standard is God or the people in their collective wisdom. If you had two populations with the identical standard except that one standard was handed down by God and the other was was coincidentally developed by humans, what possible difference could there be? The only difference I can see is that one is permanent and the other can be changed. There is risk in each over time. But at the time that the standards are identical, what difference does the source make? Karen

To: Greg or e who wrote (14343)	5/25/2001 2:57:33 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

rofl seen your just god standards got the t shirt it's got Torquemada on it nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

To: Greg or e who wrote (14343)	5/25/2001 4:47:30 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I am arguing for an objective moral standard that is based on the Just character of God." I am amazed that you even need to use the word "arguing" in that sentence. If I didn't read these threads I would say rhetorically, "who could argue against such a thing." Since I have followed this thread for a while, I kind of understand it. One of the "fears" real or not is that; people fear that the standards would include some sort of architectural statements in favor of one creed over another. Clearly anti-athiest, for example. What I would call an objective moral standard is a principle that can be operationalized in behavior. For example: "Tell the Truth." This is a behavior since it involves written, verbal, or some other manner used to provide a statement. There are all kinds of objections to this as a standard. For example, some very respected and moral people recommend that you should tell "little white lies" to avoid dealing with a tough situation. I don't, I recommend you confront the struggle if you have to. So, I can see how this is difficult even when people don't argue about the premise. I support your premise and will be happy to contribute to the discussion at any point. The first question that I would like to pose to those who object to the premise is: Question 1 - What moral standard that is based on the Just character of God does any one have an objection to, and why (Top three if you have multiple answers)? Note: I don't actually think anyone can give a valid answer to Question 1. However, pot shots are welcome too, since they have some entertainment value.