steveorino

Your reasoning is ... well interesting. I'll stop at that cause while I'm an imperfect man living in an imperfect world I recognize there are certain things I "could" say but I will follow the absolute morals I know to be true and refrain from answering. steveOrino

To me betrayal is not absolutely wrong/immoral. i do not believe it would be wrong If I betrayed the trust of my boss who was committing a heinous crime. So we have come to the conclusion that morals do not prove the existence of God and morals are not absolute. So what is your point? #1 I NEVER said all morals are absolute. #2 I asked if there were absolute morals and if there were what would they prove? I theorized God. steveOrino

From my moral standpoint it was absolutely wrong. But as I said, my moral code is my abstract construct - it doesn't actually exist and huge amounts of people will disagree with it. Therefore it is NOT ABSOLUTELY wrong ... right? steveOrino

considered ... hmmmmm, so I'm not the only one using semantics steveOrino

To me betrayal is not absolutely wrong/immoral. i do not believe it would be wrong If I betrayed the trust of my boss who was committing a heinous crime. steveOrino

And my logic is flawed? By definition absolute can't be "close enough" steveOrino

Geesh, talk about missing the point. There are immoral people -- nobody is debating that. Gawd! But you do believe it was not ABSOLUTELY wrong from a moral standpoint, right? steveOrino

Poor choice of words on my point. If they are not universal then they are arbitrary. The assassination of MLK was not ABSOLUTELY wrong. Maybe arbitrarily wrong, but not ABSOLUTELY wrong ... right? steveOrino

Oh, but they are meaningless if there is no absolute. At least by definition they are arbitrary. It was wrong by own world view and American culture to assassinate MLK, but according to your theory , it was NOT ABSOLUTELY wrong. steveOrino

So, then you believe there are no universal moral codes? If that is so then all moral judgments are meaningless. They are simply either cultural or personal. Who am I to say the murder of MLK is wrong? Sure, in American culture it may be wrong, in my personal opinion it may be wrong. But it is not ABSOLUTELY wrong. Right? That is what I hear you saying. steveOrino

Big thanks on behalf of Spanky and Chris for the many 50+ skydivers who showed up for Chris' service at the funeral home. I do believe we outnumbered other friends and family. Just shows you skydivers can be a close bunch of crazies. After the service we signed Chris' log book for Spanky. Later at Spanky's home Michael Nowatney and Justin Kehler jumped into Spanky's yard near sunset -- Justin wore Chris' RW suit and jumped Chris' canopy. It was a fitting end of a hard day. On behalf of Spanky, thanks again! Blue Skies little buddy! steveOrino

Nope, especially if joking. I'm not easily offended. steveOrino

As I explained some posts ago there are/were cultures that have no concept of "property" and "theft". In that case they neither approve nor disapprove of something that for them is utterly meaningless. The idea of property itself is not "universal". Vale I'm sure even they had something they felt was theirs and not anyone elses, but if not, they would be a very rare exception to a moral that is pervasive throughout the world. steveOrino

I'm not trying to "prove God." As you said, it is an act of faith. The Bible (Hebrews 11:1) defines faith as ... being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. I simply observed there seems to be innate moral values that we all share. I asked the quetion why. Although I'm a Christian, I'm not trying to prove God. It is my opinion that God does not need me to "prove" Him. I theorized we have innate moral values because we were created with them. I also think Kallend and others have a good theory. Especally one that fits their world view. It just doesn't fit mine. steveOrino

As I said -- you don't get my premise --- I'll move on. My original question stems the the debate does moral objectivity indicate there is a God? You explained away murder with semantics (or perhaps I have ) Are there any cultures that approve of stealing within the community? Or is stealing within the community a universal innate moral code? steveOrino

Based on what I wrote your retort should have been -- there are cultures that believe killing is fine if they see it in another light than murder. I hardly "admitted unjustified killing is fine". No one agrees with murder is PRECISELY my debate. I NEVER said no culture believes killing is wrong. I'm sorry you don't "get it." I've used up my energy explaining this easy principle over and over again. Let's move on. Found those cultures that approve of stealing from within the community, yet? steveOrino

I purchased one, but I've been doing so many tandems I seldom shoot video any more. But I love it. I "usually" shoot sport mode (as I have no photog knowledge) and I seem to do well pleasing my customers and selling to magazines too. steveOrino

And that is precicely the reason that your point doesn't work. Killing people for no real reason (not war, not punishment, not sacrifice) with no moral judgement is and always has been quite widespread in the world. The word murder (as per your definition) is the word people give to a killing they find morally objectionable - so of course they dissaprove of it. Its the most basic circular argument I've ever seen! On another tack you again admit that unjustified killing is fine, as long as its not called murder. So why on earth would god give us a moral objection to a word and not the action it describes? It makes no sense. Being widespread and morally acceptable are different. Thanks you proved my point -- "murder" is universally objectable. If you cannot see the diffrence cultures put on murder and war and justice, that is your issue not mine. Show me where I admitted unjustified killing is fine. If this "debate" is circular YOU need to let up on the toggle! How about cultures where stealing from your own community is accepted as being moral. Are there any? steveOrino

I see a BIG difference between murder and war, between murder and capital punishment. You are trying to make my "argument" for me by not distinquishing between killing and murder. My point is simply murder is universally immoral, and for people to kill someone they must call it something else -- if only in their minds. They still keep what most of us would call murder, as a moral code to keep. They justify killing in war, and in the criminal sysytem, but they still believe indescriminant killing is immoral. But let's move on. Is there a culture where stealing among themselves (not from their enemies, not when times are tough and people steal to survive) just simply stealing among your own community to have what you don't have. Is there a culture where that is valued? steveOrino

One thing is for sure... god didnt make us mind readers.... LOL! That is for sure. Plus I suck at typing. I grew up in the era before word processors. Only girls took typing in my HS unless the guy wanted help scoring with chicks by being the only rooster in the hen house. Gotta go now -- preside over the funeral for my friend Chris Hadley steveOrino

It is to your advantage to be obtuse. You are not addressing what I have said. No culture approves of murder unless they redefine it. steveOrino

The Amish kids get to live life on the outside of their communities for a while (1 year I think) and then decide if they want to leave their communities. Next? Not exactly the same thing as I was implying, their community doesn't approve of (for lack of a better word) dissing their friends. steveOrino

Can you explain why please? Every culture abhores what they define as murder. Not every culture likes or has ice cream. Talk about *&%# theory. steveOrino

I'm saying NO culture approves of murder unless they redefine it or those they kill (justice, war, etc) It is not a difficult case to understand. There are other virtues that are typically universal. Is there a culture where turning your back on friends is approved of? steveOrino

Actually my theory (not argument) is: There are universal morals To me that logicaly points to a universal creator of morals. No. You're still begging the question. All you've got is that there might be some universal morals. You might just as well conculde that having 10 toes is the root cause of morals, or having opposable thumbs is the cause of morals, or liking ice cream causes morals. It's a shit theory. Your analogy is very lacking. steveOrino