₦airaland Forum

9inches:
You are the wrong one here. Go and read up on Hitler's belief system; maybe you will forgive yourself for setting yourself up. I did not forget you said the Nazis were evil in your opinion. My point is, your subjective moral opinion which does not trump another persons' (in this case, the Nazis) subjective morality. By that worldview, it would be tyrannical for you to impose judgement on the Nazi officers.

I think you are the one with some reading to do. https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C7404623959 Furthermore, I agree with you that I can't impose my morality on others. And that is very good because others shouldn't be and to do the same to me. Rather, we are supposed to try to convince others why our views are right. However, the accepted views of society can and will be imposed on you to a certain degree. The Nazis went against the morality most of the world and paid the price.

9inches:
Maybe I should have used societal norms to represent both the laws and attitudes, since you weren't getting the point. Not oppressing any human being is a moral absolute regardless of what the societal norms is. One can only measure the degree of conformity to that moral absolute.

I disagree, we all have acceptable targets for oppression. A homosexual in Nigeria would be happily lynched by 'good' Christians and Muslims. A white male in Europe or America is more likely to be passed over for a woman or person of colour for a job or university admission due to diversity programs. Throughout history, in almost every culture. There have always been people who have gotten the short end of the stick.

9inches:
@bolded, you did not get that from me? I'm sure if you go through my previous posts, you will see me saying slavery is bad. I did say the following as well:


"If I go to preach the gospel to prisoners (even those on death row) on how they should be of good behaviour, it does not make me a supporter of the system that put the prisoners there. If the apostles were to be the judges, they will all receive mercy and forgiveness, but unfortunately they weren't."

I believe rape is bad. I'm sure you agree with me. Now, do you tell rapists to treat their victims romantically or to sedate their victims to reduce the trauma? Or do you just declare that rape is bad?

A single sentence prohibiting slavery could have stopped the Christians in Europe and America from starting the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. We didn't get that. The Bible clearly failed in this regard.

CoolUsername:
I think you are the one with some reading to do. https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C7404623959

It's either you did not read the whole thing or you have to work on your assimilation.
"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

Furthermore, I agree with you that
I can't impose my morality on others. And that is very good because others shouldn't be and to do the same to me. Rather, we are supposed to try to convince others why our views are right. However, the accepted views of society can and will be imposed on you to a certain degree. The Nazis went against the morality most of the world and paid the price.

By this argument, you are saying morality is a majority-minority thing, aren't you? That justifies the extermination of the jews in Nazi germany- the accepted views of the society was imposed on them. The "rest of the world", out of sheer envy and hatred, took a high moral ground to attack a prosperous and independent nation.

SUBJECTIVE [suh b-jek-tiv] adj.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).

I disagree, we all have acceptable targets for oppression. A homosexual in Nigeria would be happily lynched by 'good' Christians and Muslims. A white male in Europe or America is more likely to be passed over for a woman or person of colour for a job or university admission due to diversity programs. Throughout history, in almost every culture. There have always been people who have gotten the short end of the stick.

Moral absolutes do not depend on acceptability. It's a standard with which we measure our morality. A homosexual should not be harmed in any way regardless the society/country. A white male in Europe or America still has more opportunities than a minority. Affirmative action as a diversity program is a form of sacrifice to accommodate others (which can be seen as a virtue) if done willfully. It's even the asians that are at the short end the stick on this particular issue especially in the US.

I believe rape is bad. I'm sure you agree with me. Now, do you tell rapists to treat their victims romantically or to sedate their victims to reduce the trauma? Or do you just declare that rape is bad?

I don't just declare rape is bad, I advise girls to always have 'protections' in their bags incase such inevitable happens. That said, the ancient slavery is different from modern slavery or rape. Unlike rape victims, slaves willfully become slaves for different reasons ranging from owing debts to serving punishments for crimes committed.

A single sentence prohibiting slavery could have stopped the Christians in Europe and America from starting the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. We didn't get that. The Bible clearly failed in this regard.

Christianity has never been in support of slavery. Christianity recognises moral absolute that every human was created with an innate value. Therefore regarding as unethical, labour practices that enable people to be controlled, exploited and deprived of their innate dignity and freedom. And no, you can't use a single sentence or proclamation to end societal vices.

9inches:
It's either you did not read the whole thing or you have to work on your assimilation. "So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

I can't believe this. The level of intellectual dishonesty in this comment shows that your faith-based willful blindness to fact and denial of reality. The full quote: "*.Trying to take a long view of things, is it conceivable that one could found anything durable on falsehood ? When I think of our people's future, I must look further than immediate advantages, even [p. 59] if these advantages were to last three hundred, five hundred years or more. I'm convinced that any pact with the Church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful character of such a compromise. Thus the State will have based its existence on a foundation that one day will collapse. An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure science. That's why I've always kept the Party aloof from religious questions. I've thus prevented my Catholic and Protestant supporters from forming groups against one another, and inadvertently knocking each other out with the Bible and the sprinkler. So we never became involved with these Churches' forms of worship. And if that has momentarily made my task a little more difficult, at least I've never run the risk of carrying grist to my opponents' mill. The help we would have provisionally obtained from a concordat would have quickly become a burden on us. In any case, the main thing is to be clever in this matter and not to look for a struggle where it can be avoided. So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the [p. 60] stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity." Look at the bolded part you left out, we can see that Hitler was clearly opposed to atheism despite being critical of Christianity in private, making him a theist or deist. This however, doesn't change the fact that he used Christianity in his public speeches to solicit support.

9inches:
By this argument, you are saying morality is a majority-minority thing, aren't you? That justifies the extermination of the jews in Nazi germany- the accepted views of the society was imposed on them. The "rest of the world", out of sheer envy and hatred, took a high moral ground to attack a prosperous and independent nation. SUBJECTIVE [suh b-jek-tiv] adj. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).

This is the last time I'm going to explain this. Morality is heavily influenced by the social environment we are raised. If it was based on solely in the morality of the majority, then why did I say that we must try to convince others? Your morality is personal to you and that is a fact. To your second point: The invasion of Germany was a good thing because there was a very empirical effect, the death and suffering of millions of Jews. Hitler also dominated Europe with such rapidity that he proved to be a legitimate threat to the world powers.

9inches:
Moral absolutes do not depend on acceptability. It's a standard with which we measure our morality. A homosexual should not be harmed in any way regardless the society/country. A white male in Europe or America still has more opportunities than a minority. Affirmative action as a diversity program is a form of sacrifice to accommodate others (which can be seen as a virtue) if done willfully. It's even the asians that are at the short end the stick on this particular issue especially in the US.

Would you have said that a homosexual should not be harmed before exposure to the Internet? Would you have said that if you had been born in the 1950s. Would you have said that if you were born and raised in Maiduguri? Has this always been your position on this matter?

9inches:
I don't just declare rape is bad, I advise girls to always have 'protections' in their bags incase such inevitable happens.

That said, the ancient slavery is different from modern slavery or rape. Unlike rape victims, slaves willfully become slaves for different reasons ranging from owing debts to serving punishments for crimes committed.

Really, you mean to tell me that all slaves were willing participants? I wonder it they could just walk away or if their owners weren't allowed to beat them to within an inch of their lives (The Law of Moses permits slave owners to beat their slaves provided that it takes a few days for the injured slaves to die)?

I wonder if this makes pedophilia okay if the 7-year-old victim gives 'consent'?

9inches:
Christianity has never been in support of slavery. Christianity recognises moral absolute that every human was created with an innate value.

Therefore regarding as unethical, labour practices that enable people to be controlled, exploited and deprived of their innate dignity and freedom. And no, you can't use a single sentence or proclamation to end societal vices.

This seems more like your own modern and subjective interpretation of Christianity.

Christians have been responsible for anti-Semitism, racism, religious crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The Hundred Years War, and witch burnings throughout history.

Are you sure those people interpreted the Bible the way you do?

Besides, if the Bible can't stop people from doing what they want, then how is it a source of objective morality.

CoolUsername:
Hitler was clearly opposed to atheism despite being critical of Christianity in private, making him a theist or deist. This however, doesn't change the fact that he used Christianity in his public speeches to solicit support

You did read it this time, hence coming to the realization that Hitler's morality is far from the objective morality from the moral giver. Hitler is even more into deontologist worldview than any other thing.

This is the last time I'm going to explain this. Morality is heavily influenced by the social environment we are raised. If it was based on solely in the morality of the majority, then why did I say that we must try to convince others? Your morality is personal to you and that is a fact. To your second point: The invasion of Germany was a good thing because there was a very empirical effect, the death and suffering of millions of Jews. Hitler also dominated Europe with such rapidity that he proved to be a legitimate threat to the world powers.

Morality: noun
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
What happens when you fail in your attempt to convince others; you forcefully exert 'justice' out of the morality that you (and your likes) formulated. Given that moral subjectivity embraces diversity by seeing that a particular worldview isn't the only right one. The problem comes when you think at any time that your moral worldview is more valuable than the next person's. The moment that moral subjectivity becomes moral superiority, things like holocaust, invasion of germany and the crusades happen- deaths of million humans.

Would you have said that a homosexual should not be harmed before exposure to the Internet? Would you have said that if you had been born in the 1950s. Would you have said that if you were born and raised in Maiduguri? Has this always been your position on this matter?

Whatever position one might have held (or still hold) has nothing to do with the existence of moral absolute. I do not see the point of this question?

Really, you mean to tell me that all slaves were willing participants? I wonder it they could just walk away or if their owners weren't allowed to beat them to within an inch of their lives (The Law of Moses permits slave owners to beat their slaves provided that it takes a few days for the injured slaves to die)?
I wonder if this makes pedophilia okay if the 7-year-old victim gives 'consent'?

Wrong interpretation, read again: "Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves. 21 However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating, you are not to be punished. After all, you have already lost the services of that slave who was your property."
@bolded, what do you mean by "okay"?

This seems more like your own modern and subjective interpretation of Christianity.
Christians have been responsible for anti-Semitism, racism, religious crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The Hundred Years War, and witch burnings throughout history.
Are you sure those people interpreted the Bible the way you do?
Besides, if the Bible can't stop people from doing what they want, then how is it a source of objective morality.

Christianity is not a source for moral absolutism. I said Christianity recognises and embraces its existence, which should already tell you it predates Christianity. You should also be intelligent enough to make a distinction between Christianity and Christians. Christians have and still commit atrocities because they can't stop being human. A call to Christianity is a call to a life of struggle with sin and its consequences. Richard Dawkins forgot something and while racking his brain, subconsciously muttered "oh my god" on live interview; would you attribute that to atheism rather than to him being human? Christianity does not change, people do.

DADDY FREEZE IS THE ONLY RENOWNED MAN OF GOD I KNOW, ALL HE SAYS CLEARLY INCOPORATE WITH THE WORD BUT AFRICANS WILL ONLY LIKE TO LISTEN TO PASTORS AND NOT GOD. THAT IS WHY AFRICANS ESPECIALLY NIGERIA WILL DIE IN ABJECT POVERTY. GOD WILL NOT COME FROM HEAVEN, IF HE DOES, IT IS TO JUDGE. WE ALL HAVE THE WORD. EVEN HEATHEN KNOW BETTER THAN MOST CHRISTIANS.

Whatsup with freez I tout his a radio presenter ? And wen d he turn to start fighting men of God ? Oga leave dem for God to judge oo