Beastie's fear

[_EAllusion]

Of course, it is approximately zero. Belief in God tends to create, again of course, a sense of moral absolutism, not moral relativism. Secular moral relativism exterminated well over one hundred million people during the 20th century

Neither Nazis nor Stalinists nor Maoists, which is what I presume you are referring to, were moral relativists.

Divine Command Theory isn't relativist either. It does allow one to argue that something is moral, even if it is abhorrent, if God so wills it. It's just arbitrary, which is one of the pitfalls it shares with moral relativism.

[_EAllusion]

For those who believe something should be believed to be moral if God so decrees it, scripture cannot preclude the possibility of any act being decreed morally proper, including but not limited to having nonconsensual sex with 5 year old boys, flying airplanes into buildings, and murdering every last Jew. Even if scripture says, "Do not have nonconsensual sex with 5 year old boys, fly airplanes into buildings, or murder every last Jew" that still doesn't matter. You see, God can simply point out he was lying, but in that instance his lying was morally proper. That always remains a possibility, even if God says he doesn't lie. But God wouldn't have to even do that. He could simply suggest that these rules are good, but there are exceptions for which he may now reveal. Therefore, this is not "impossible." For someone who likes to lob a lot of empty insults designed to imply he is in a position of deep knowledge able castigate those with shallow understanding, he sure doesn't have a basic grasp of the matter.

[_AmazingDisgrace]

Beastie knows full well that the Gospel, of course, utterly precludes such a possibility, and no such revelation is ever going to come, or ever has.

But does it really? If I were unaware of the contents of the Old Testament, I might believe that the gospel would preclude the possibility of God commanding a man to take his son into the mountains and stab him to death, or the possibility of God commanding a group of people to exterminate every man, woman, child, and animal living within the walls of a Canaanite city.

If you believe that there is a subset of human actions that God would never command any person to perform, how do you know what that set is, reliably enough to assert that a certain action belongs in it? A lack of scriptural precedent wouldn't be a helpful indicator, as Abraham didn't have any examples of previous prophets practicing human sacrifice prior to him.

If Joseph Smith was correct in saying, "Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire", then there doesn't appear to be any grounds for claiming that a given action is beyond the possibility of being divinely commanded at some future time.

[_wenglund]

In other words, what is the likelyhood of, say: 1) God telling the prophet of the LDS Church that it was benefitial for adult men to have sex with young males; 2) The prophet disclosing this to the Church; 3) God verifying to me and other LDS that what the prophet disclosed is A-Ok; 4) Me and other LDS agreeing that it is A-OK; and 5) Me and other LDS adult males having sex with young male children?

Well, it already happened with polygamy.

Yes, in a way it did happen with polygamy. And, if you think about it, it happen with virtually every aspect of the restored gospel of Christ--including the edict to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, and heal the sick.

However, the question isn't whether or not beliefs and practices come about in the way described (that is the very essense of religious belief, and isn't in dispute), but the probabilities of the specified thing happening as described.

Beastie tells us that "of course this specific example isn't likely to happen." Do you agree?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Of course this specific example isn't likely to happen. But you predictably miss my point. My point isn't that one particular thing will happen at all. Here's the real question, IN FACT:

How likely is it that True Believers in the LDS church would be willing to abandon their own native sense of morality to accommodate what "God" tells their leaders and affirms to them via "revelation"?

For True Believers, I would say the likelihood approaches 100%.

Of course True Believers only represent a portion of active LDS. There are many LDS who would be quite willing and able to draw a line.

You have already told us that you would be willing to reconsider your moral aversion to sex between adult men and male children if GOD told the prophet it was ok, and then verified that to you. So you are, IN FACT, a True Believer who has already answered this question for your particular case. The only question is what percentage of LDS would agree with you?

I was under the impression that my "native sense of morality" is, to a significant degree, God-based (i.e. a function of my religious beliefs). If so, then it wouldn't make sense for you to say that am willing to abandon my God-based morality to accomadate God. Right?

So how do you make sense of what you suggest?

Anyway, I am wondering if you believe there is anything intrinsic to fear in some people's willingness to alter (not to be confused with "abandon") their morals (from whence-ever they are derived) to accomodate what they believe to be revelations from God? For example, do you think it reasonable to fear a once non-believer that thought steeling was perfectly exceptable, who after converting to belief in God, felt a deeper respect for personal property, and adjusted his morals to accomodate his new belief in God?

Or, is your fear but of the extreme and "unlikely" and presumably negative adjustments one may make in one's morals to accomodate God?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dr. Shades]

Beastie tells us that "of course this specific example isn't likely to happen." Do you agree?

Yes, I agree that it isn't likely to happen. But an angel appearing with a drawn sword and commanding Joseph to marry teenage girls and other men's wives wasn't likely to happen either, but guess what?

[_beastie]

I was under the impression that my "native sense of morality" is, to a significant degree, God-based (I.e. a function of my religious beliefs). If so, then it wouldn't make sense for you to say that am willing to abandon my God-based morality to accomadate God. Right?

Oh, come on. Are you saying that if you weren’t a Mormon who believed in God, you would think that adult men having sex with children is fine? Or that murder is hunky-dory? Or that stealing is fine??

You possess a basic sense of morality that is completely apart from your religious beliefs.

Moreover, if your moral sense was largely derived from your religious beliefs, and your religious beliefs say “God is always right, no matter what he commands”, then your native morals wouldn’t react negatively at times. Look at the revulsion early Mormons had to polygamy when they were first confronted with it. Look at how hard they had to work to overcome that revulsion. That indicates that what “God” was asking them to do directly conflicted with their native morals.

Anyway, I am wondering if you believe there is anything intrinsic to fear in some people's willingness to alter (not to be confused with "abandon") their morals (from whence-ever they are derived) to accomodate what they believe to be revelations from God? For example, do you think it reasonable to fear a once non-believer that thought steeling was perfectly exceptable, who after converting to belief in God, felt a deeper respect for personal property, and adjusted his morals to accomodate his new belief in God?

Obviously there is nothing to fear when God’s “revelations” encourage people to behave in more socially amenable fashions. But the history of the world and religion makes it very plain that, quite often, God’s “revelations” do not encourage people to behave in a more socially amenable fashion.

My god, Wade. You said you would reevaluate your stance against men having sex with children if God revealed it. There is something deeply troubling about that, in my opinion. It doesn’t matter how likely or unlikely it is. What matters is that you would reevaluate your stance, even in regards to something so disturbing and malicious.

[_wenglund]

I was under the impression that my "native sense of morality" is, to a significant degree, God-based (I.e. a function of my religious beliefs). If so, then it wouldn't make sense for you to say that am willing to abandon my God-based morality to accomadate God. Right?

Oh, come on. Are you saying that if you weren’t a Mormon who believed in God, you would think that adult men having sex with children is fine? Or that murder is hunky-dory? Or that stealing is fine??

No. I am saying that my "native sense of morality" is, to a significant degree, God-based (i.e. a function of my religious beliefs).

Beyond that I can only conjecture what my morals may or may not consist of were I not LDS or disbelieved in God. And, while in discussions with you, I prefer not to conjecture.

You possess a basic sense of morality that is completely apart from your religious beliefs.

And what does that basic sense of morality consist of, and how do I destinquish it from my God-based morality?

Asked another way, did the ancient Romans, Greeks, and Chinese have my same basic sense of morality? (I ask because in those cultures, pedaphilia was not only accepted, but prized). If not, why not, and why the difference?

Moreover, if your moral sense was largely derived from your religious beliefs, and your religious beliefs say “God is always right, no matter what he commands”, then your native morals wouldn’t react negatively at times. Look at the revulsion early Mormons had to polygamy when they were first confronted with it. Look at how hard they had to work to overcome that revulsion. That indicates that what “God” was asking them to do directly conflicted with their native morals.

Why couldn't the same revulsion be due to uncertainty, confusion, lack of understanding, and/or the human tendancy to resist change? I would think these factors to be more likely than what you suggest, particularly the more radical the required paradigm shift.

According to your beliefs, from whence cometh this "native sense of morality"? Do you think there is a "morality gene"?

Whatever the case, even were one to accept your nondescript notion of a "native sense of morality", this does not negate religious influence on one's morals (particularly with religious people, though also those in religious societies), and it thus is difficult to know where the alleged "native sense of morality" ends and religious influence begins.

Anyway, I am wondering if you believe there is anything intrinsic to fear in some people's willingness to alter (not to be confused with "abandon") their morals (from whence-ever they are derived) to accomodate what they believe to be revelations from God? For example, do you think it reasonable to fear a once non-believer that thought steeling was perfectly exceptable, who after converting to belief in God, felt a deeper respect for personal property, and adjusted his morals to accomodate his new belief in God?

Obviously there is nothing to fear when God’s “revelations” encourage people to behave in more socially amenable fashions. But the history of the world and religion makes it very plain that, quite often, God’s “revelations” do not encourage people to behave in a more socially amenable fashion.

To some degree I agree. However, has the "native sense of morality" in godless societies throughout history been any more amenable to encouraging people to behave in a more socially amenable fashion?

My take on history (particular in the last half mellenia), would suggest the opposite, and in terms of Judeo-Christian societies, it would suggest that religious influence was far more encouraging of elevating behavior than the alleged "native sense of morality".

As such, this logically suggest to me that one's fear shouldn't be of religious influences on moraity, or even of the alleged "native sense of morality", but of behaviors which are discouraging and contra to amenable sociality. Right?

My god, Wade. You said you would reevaluate your stance against men having sex with children if God revealed it. There is something deeply troubling about that, in my opinion. It doesn’t matter how likely or unlikely it is. What matters is that you would reevaluate your stance, even in regards to something so disturbing and malicious.

You are getting quite exercised over my uncertain, non-commital, and tenative philosophical answer to your admittedly highly unlikely hypothetical. Do you really think that is rational? Aren't there clear and bonified cases of disturbing malice far more deserving of your fear and self-righteous indignation?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Coggins7]

Neither Nazis nor Stalinists nor Maoists, which is what I presume you are referring to, were moral relativists.

Utter nonsense. They were all nihilists, all believers in the absolute, transcendent, and ultimate value of power. The fact that Socialism, National Socialism, Fascism, etc. are dogmatic with respect to specific, idiosyncratic doctrines alters nothing regarding the fact that all of these movements are, in essence, a postscript to Nietzsche (and others philosophers of the idealistic continental tradition, but within Nietzsche, more than any others; in the death of God and the meaninglessness of the concept of settled, certain values and moral standards, we find the seeds of the modern Left) and that the revolutionary doctrine, whatever it is, is constructed out of whole cloth as an arbitrary replacement to the old order, which must be destroyed and erased. The relativism is inherent in the very assumption that man is the measure of all things and that reason, ideology, and the will to power can erase longstanding moral and ethical values at will because all values are, in essence, relative and arbitrary (base and superstructure theory, Frankfurt School media and cultural theory, Sixties value relativism (which was as dogmatic a philosophy as one would wish to find, but a philosophy that claimed, at the same time, all philosophies and systems of values to be...relative) etc.).

It would be more accurate to say that the ideological dogmatism of Hitler, Lenin, or Mao, was a natural outgrowth or tendency of the relativism and nihilism inherent in the philosophical substructure of the political ideology, just as authoritarianism and totalitarianism are are natural and inherent developments and tendencies of socialist theory.

This seems paradoxical on the surface, but is fully in harmony with the core assumptions of leftist thought and the psychological predispositions created by acceptance of it. Multiculturalism is relativist, it teaches that all cultures, value systems, and cultural structures are relative and equal, and hence should all be equally respected. Setting aside the preposterousness of the central idea here, Multiculturalism, in practice, is really nothing more than intellectual National Socialism, and is as rigid, absolutist and intolerant of dissent as any ideology has ever been.

In like manner, Mao's cultural revolution was nihilistic;a destruction of all values in the name of a new set of values created from thin air and who's very claimed essence (brotherhood, equality, and community) were themselves destroyed in the conflagration. Of course, socialism itself is not really about any of these things, but about social engineering; the use of unlimited and unaccountable force to shape society into the desired form. The internal contradictions here are massive, but explain how relativism and nihilism (or what I call simply "strong" relativism) also usually end by being absolutist.

[_wenglund]

Beastie tells us that "of course this specific example isn't likely to happen." Do you agree?

Yes, I agree that it isn't likely to happen. But an angel appearing with a drawn sword and commanding Joseph to marry teenage girls and other men's wives wasn't likely to happen either, but guess what?

To the godless mind, many if not most religious truth-claims aren't considered "likely to have happened either."

The question, then, isn't the perceived unlikelyness of an event happening, but the unlikeliness of certain beliefs being held and acted on as described. (Do you understand the distinction?)

One may get a clue (if they haven't already), that, given the multi-millions of members of the Church who have believed that for a time (both anciently and modern), polygamy was instituted of God through his latter-day prophets, and during that time many members received spiritual confirmation thereof, and were willing, if not reluctant, to enter into the practice; whereas, to my knowledge, not a single member from the dawn of time, in good standing, has believed that God has, or would, reveal to his prophet that it is beneficial for adult men to have sex with male children, nor has a single member in good standing received confirmation of such, and engaged in the practice accordingly.

With such staggering disparity in sheer numbers, I am sure even you would think the latter belief/practice comparitively far more unlikely than the former. After all, even Beastie has been able to get this. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-