TTM

If you can't answer either of these questions definitively, then you don't believe in absolute morality. By definition, absolute morality does not care about context. So God's absolute morality is beyond our understanding. Doesnt that make the situation for us the same as if absolute morality doesn't exist? Either way we have no way of knowing for certain what the moral action is. If God (or his representatives on earth) tell me to "murder innocent children" I should just go along because even though I can't understand, it must be Good?

We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law. Your quote. Either all of the law was "fulfilled" or none. No picking and choosing.

You explained how the rules and philosopy in the old testament are inconsistent with that of the new testament (I.e. the old testament laws used to be Good, but now they are not, because apparently absolute morality was different in the past). My point was that the old testament was inconsistent with itself (thou shalt not kill anyone, but please kill 90% of the human population).

Science (math, botany, astronomy, medicine, etc.) flourished during Islam's golden age, in which the culture tended to be more tolerant and secular. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world. The more fundamentalist application of Islam has resulted in their current state. The Renaissance and followig scientific revolution was due to an influx of pre-Christian (Greek, Latin) thought into Europe. Usury (banking with interest) ok was historcally forbidden in christianity. Your examples show that progress is due to an increase in secularism, or a weakening of religion

So the old rules don't matter any more? Including the 10 commandments? Or are only some of the rules still in effect? How do you decide which ones? Seems pretty inconsistent and open to interpretation.

Sure am. The point is that saying "Thou shalt not kill" while sentencing to death 90 percent of the human population is pretty inconsistent.

So he might? It's situational? What are these moral absolutes again? A missive? Like the bible? Maybe the devil commanded "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." So God did direct us to do evil in the Old Testament? Doesn't that contradict the notion that God is Good?

These are all groups that the bible explicitly tells you to kill, despite "thou shalt not kill"

Do only use your instincts and impulses guide you? I also tend to also use reason and logic, along with cultural rules, laws, and norms. Evolution left us with a fairly well developed sense of morality because we are social animals, and acting morally in a social group tends to be beneficial.

That's not what I said at all. Please reread my post. It is a pretty classic thought experiment about religion and morality. Basically if you believe that morality stems from God, and God tells you to (your words) "kill innocent children", then killing children must be morally "Good" My view is that it is self evident that something is not "Good" simply because God says it is.

Allowing the existence of God, the fundamental conundrum is mentioned in the video: "is something Good because God wills it, or does God will something because it is Good?" The first question allows God as the arbitor of morality, and was generally accepted historically, but leads to some fairly "uncomfortable" conclusions and "dubious" acts. The second demonstrates that morality exists outside of God. The video tries to sidestep the question by stating "God wills it because he is Good" I.e the "have my cake and eat it response". This is a meaningless tautology that does not remove the conundrum. God willed the children dead, and it was Good because he is Good

No murder except: witches, homosexuals, fortune tellers, nonbelievers, believers in other religions, blasphemers, false prophets, people who don't listen to priests (or judges), children who strike or curse their parents, adulterers (men and women), fornicators (women only), people who work on sunday. Then it's justified.

Russia fixing your election would be more acceptable then the Electors acting on their constitutional mandate. Interesting viewpoint.

French is the language of one of the founding groups of Canada, is spoken by to some degree by nearly third of the population (mother tongue of somewhat less than a quarter), and was enshrined by law as an official language nearly 50 years ago (through the terms of 9 different governments). Canada is a French speaking nation.

Thanks for the compliment. To further the metaphor, rubber brick in that it will bounce back at the thrower and/or an innocent bystander, probably resulting in a bloody nose.

Mocked, in the same way Trump is? In both cases resistance was fanned by one side of the political establishment (with the support of their portion of the corporatist media), with only lukewarm tolerance to outright hostility by the other. These sorts of things will continue until the problem is addressed

French is one of our official languages therefore we are a so-called french speaking country...

Not true in the least ... 4 years of Trump actually in power will likely change alot of minds

People make choices based on what their real, percieved, or desired economic class it all the time. I don't think they usually think about it in those terms though.

It's rhetoric of pretty much anyone even remotely "right wing". So what?

The majority likely voted for him despite the racist stuff either because of a cost/benefit decision or because it is not directed at them. Does that make them paragons of virtue, no, nor does it clear them of responsibility from the results. But it does not mean they hold any overtly racist beliefs. Regardless you can't reach someone by calling them racist because either they acknowledge they are and don't care (or take pride) they don't view themselves as racist and so what you say does not apply to them.

if people just identified as poor rather than as not having succeeded yet, then they'd vote for their own best interest, that is, for handouts. The poor voting for their interests is not equivalent to voting for handouts: laws, regulations, tax policy, etc can differentially favour rich vs. poor. As far as programs specifically aimed at the poor ("hand-outs"), they are almost universally cheaper then the alternative if you don't externalize costs. almost every individual has it in them to succeed and do well. Sure, but even ignoring the people not included in "almost everyone" this is limited in reality by basic economics: "everyone" cannot do well. Ex. not everyone can be an engineer (and if they could then supply and demand would dictate it would become a minimum wage job). Someone has to clean the toilets, wait tables, sell you shoes, etc. Everyone (as a group) can do "better" by minimizing as much as possible income inequality but someone still needs to be at the bottom (unless you are advocating communism). The moment you call someone racist, you've shut down any possibility of genuine debate Very true, the majority of Trump supporters are no more racist than those on the left (most people are prejudiced or "biased" to some degree whether they are aware of it or not). On the other hand, if I found myself in the same camp as the KKK, I personally would need to do some serious soul searching

Because (as they saw it) they had no other options. He was elected because he made the right mouth noises about cleaning things up and bringing back jobs, and because the establishment on both sides made it clear he was not one of them. Trump is a brick thrown at the establishment. My guess is that it is a rubber brick.

+1

Again, I don't care about the rightness or wrongness of Marxist communism (I have little opinion on the subject; as far as I'm concerned the correct solution is not communism but the modern welfare state). Regardless of Marx's conclusions, his analysis of the problem regarding the influence of unfettered capitalism on democracy 100+ years ago is a spot on description of modern American politics, and helps explains the success of Trump and similar movements elsewhere.