Third Child Shall Walk the World Blind

I find the notion of secularists have "relativistic" morals to be amusing, especially considering the theistic moral code train wreck in the thread concerning Nigerians imprisonment of homosexuals. All arguments condoning such a vile act on the part of the Nigerian government who under the thin veil of relativistic morals.

However my question never answered, which is anything but surprising. So I will ask again, and I need only clear concise answers. I have no interest in ESP or whatever mystical bs someone feels like throwing in the mix to avoid dismissing relativistic morals.

Example:
There is a tribe in a far away land, they possess an ancient holy book that they base their lives on. Within this holy book there is a verse "Every third child will walk the world blind, thy eyes shall be removed by thy father's blade."

So the father removes the eyes of every third child with a knife. Is this right or morally objectable? A blatant human rights violent? Do we in a developed country have a right to prevent such a gross human rights violation? Keep in mind it is their religious and cultural code to uphold this verse.

Now for those in the Nigerian imprisonment thread who said it was okay to mutilate your children for a silly religious practice, how is genocide not justified by this way of thinking?

 

Nice.

Not only can he not continue in one thread, where he failed to address any salient point - continuing an emotional and accusive campaign in a different thread as if that is kosher - he sets the stage from such a derisive show case of disgust by asking us something that our religion does not command - in the slightest.

A better question, you atheists are doing math problems (because I am sure that is how atheists have fun), when math tells you that the world population is too high and that starvation and deprivation are imminent? What do you do? Force abortions on people ala China? Murder the excess and stupid? Or merely pretend you have no ethics and allow this to pass, effectively murdering people with your silence?

What would you do?

 

I answered this one before and think we should stop the practice but that is becuase my morality code comes from my religion and society. But I never heard from you what makes my or your concept of right or wrong more valid then another person or groups?

Is morality black or white considering that as time progresses things that were considered right or wrong have changed?

 

My basis is the prevention of human suffering, which is a universal moral code.

Far removed from moral relativism.

 

I find the notion that theists who pick and choose which moral code in their holy books to follow and declare the rest to be no longer valid to be amusing.

Now why do they pick and choose? Because secularists convinced them that all the evil (*)(*)(*)(*) in their holy books was wrong.

 

Fill me in. What is "our religion" again?

 

I find it amusing they accuse secularists of possessing relative morals, they talk out of the other side of their face and say that the enlightened secularists have no right to tell Nigeria they are wrong for imprisoning homosexuals.

Nothing short of hypocritical and morally repugnant.

 

Christians are not obligated to the follow the old law. This was established at the Council of Jerusalem, as well as Paul's teachings.

 

And yet, here you talk about ... plucking the eye out of every third child's eye. That i am sure, will do much to alleviate actual suffering. Seems rather, Don Quixoteish to me.

Moral relativism seems to just be the lastest tool to bash people in comparison to yourself with.

Moral relativism is the idea that anything goes. And in your case, well, anything you want seems fine - no need to address the countering balance whatsoever.

That would be moral relativism.

 

And you have yet to establish why it is.

A real moral relativist think his opinion of what is right or wrong is all that counts. That would be you.

 

As opposed to atheists who have no moral code whatsoever and have repeated been exposed as having altered standards just to crap on other people?

I guess having a moral code that is constantly about putting other people down is a better thing?

 

The west is in no position to condemn or stop it since they themselves are killing innocent people daily in Countries like Iraq and Afghanistan......that's a lot worse then what those people you talk about are doing. If the American people can't prevent or hold the U.S government accountable, then what right do they have in condemning others?

 

I wasn't a part of your other thread...so I'm going based of this post alone.

Yes...it is morally objectable to blind every third child. Not all religions or belief systems are equally beneficial. You being an Atheist might stand with me on this being an atrocity thus wrong because on this issue we might have a shared value.

The same situation could be said of the Mayans and Aztecs that thankfully were crushed by the Christian Spaniards. Personally...I don't want neighbors that roll young children in a fire--burned alive-- as sacrifice to their fire God. Or where the entire culture is based on aggressive war to acquire prisoners as sacrifice to the Sun God. Not politically correct of course...but in my mind its good riddence their culture is gone.

The Hebrew God has a morality that Christians are supposed to strive for...and much of our past and some of our present culture is based on that.

Without the God of the Hebrews then society is at the whim of whatever morality humans come up with--no matter what religion or non-religion those humans are.

Our laws are based on morality. But our freedom here in the U.S is based on what is truely Christian---allowing the concept of free-will.

 

perhaps we'll all consult you for your personal moral code, then force it on the rest of the people.

 

I am not talking about the conflicts in Iraq or Afganistan.

I am talking about a groups society and culture that is cruel and destructive towards their children, and whether or not religion and culture are enough to justifiy such deeds.

I say they religion and culture should be dmissed if they conflict with human well being.

 

Is removing eyes of the third child morally objectable?

Yes or no.

 

I agree with most of this.

The Hebrew god is not a role model for human morality, not in any sense of the word.

The people were at the whim of whatever religion that was present, they chose one mad made law over the over. There is nothing particularly special or unique about that particular situation.

The US government is not based on Christianity.

 

I don't separate abuse of children from the abuse of adults, animals, and the environment. All abuse stems from a faulty way of thinking and a lack of people not knowing what their purpose is. So there are a lot of things that people do in this Country (U.S) that is not in the best interest of a human being. People should examine themselves first and make corrections of themselves of the way they do things that hurt others, then they can advise others if asked.

 

is there absolute truth ?

 

It may seem that way on the surface but God's purpose for man go way farther than what would be possible in the U.S. In a democracy, in the U.S, people are basically just citizens, consumers and workers. The individual cannot make decrees or laws and have it binding on anyone.....our freedom is limited and curtailed.

Under God's definition of freedom human beings were made to be rulers, kings and lord over His creation, and was intended to make decrees and laws that would be binding over, the birds of the sky, the sea creatures, land creatures and eventually whatever creation that would be created on the other planets in the universe.

Adam was able to name all the animals that God created. Think about it. For him to do that he would have to go to the deepest part of the ocean, the four corners of the Earth and so on. He did it wile he was still a mortal man.....his ability was far greater than what we can do today, after sin enterned man.

But of course, the second and third part of what I have said is way too deep and beyond the thinking of the vast majority of people and I might be considered crazy by some.....including most Christians.

 

It is a simply yes or no question.

 

This does not answer the question.

 

I would say before one begins to point finger they should first examine themselves, to see if they are part of the problem as well. When the individual can fix themselves, then they will be in a position to advise others.

 

it is simplistic, yes.

 

Yeah BF, just admit that you are stupid moral relativist and be done with it.

I mean there is absolutely nothing morally reletivistic about picking something absolutely absurd and then saying, "This is what all you Christians think!!!! I hate you!!!"

Well, how about we stick to things that are actually relevant noral questions for our day and age and leave the judgement for God?