And THIS is why there are wars. Irreconcilable differences. Inflexible positions. And each one claims the truth. God is not there gentlemen. Sorry.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:More for Chris:http://www.bible.ca/cath-overview-false-teaching.htm[/quote]Just can’t escape the dispensationalists. Hardcore Arminian dispensationalists this time. Lord help us. That site is well meaning and does have some good stuff, but wouldn’t be my pick for truth about catholicism. You won’t surprise Chris or any other knowledgeable Catholic with this. They have an answer satisfactory to themselves for absolutely everything. Yes, just like me.
[/quote]
I just picked one random. There are 5 million hits for “false catholic doctrine”. Would you like me to reference them all?[/quote]
I guess the phrase, “there is a thousand lies, but one truth” is a little humble in this instance. Most of those arguments are usually fallacious. It’s not hard to make fallacious arguments against the Catholic faith, after all we do have such a deep faith and it may be difficult for some to understand it or easy to take part of it and pull it out of context.[/quote]
Your responses are growing weaker. Argument by cliche?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Most of your hatred is based on a building. >>>[/quote]Tiribulus wrote a few days ago:[quote]<<< the theology of that church and the walking deadness of her members provided plenty of evidence of her anti Christian nature without resorting to playing the pedo/cover up card. >>>[/quote]pat wrote:[quote]<<< So what did he say ‘Good’ is?[/quote]He didn’t, but it won’t be what God, who alone has that prerogative says it is so what difference does it make? That is good which reflects His purpose and power and thereby advances His kingdom and glory. Created man, especially fallen, sinful created man, is breathtakingly ill equipped to utter so much as a single syllable in that regard on purpose from his own mind and being.
[/quote]
“the theology of that church and the walking deadness of her members provided plenty of evidence of her anti Christian nature without resorting to playing the pedo/cover up card.” ← Where is your evidence. You saying it doesn’t make it so, at all. I want concrete examples, because I believe your hatred of us to be purely emotive, no facts.
[/quote]
Saying so does not make it so?
Link to my holocaust denying please.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:More for Chris:http://www.bible.ca/cath-overview-false-teaching.htm[/quote]Just can’t escape the dispensationalists. Hardcore Arminian dispensationalists this time. Lord help us. That site is well meaning and does have some good stuff, but wouldn’t be my pick for truth about catholicism. You won’t surprise Chris or any other knowledgeable Catholic with this. They have an answer satisfactory to themselves for absolutely everything. Yes, just like me.
[/quote]
I just picked one random. There are 5 million hits for “false catholic doctrine”. Would you like me to reference them all?[/quote]
I guess the phrase, “there is a thousand lies, but one truth” is a little humble in this instance. Most of those arguments are usually fallacious. It’s not hard to make fallacious arguments against the Catholic faith, after all we do have such a deep faith and it may be difficult for some to understand it or easy to take part of it and pull it out of context.[/quote]
Your responses are growing weaker. Argument by cliche?
[/quote]
No, but if I’m arguing by cliche, you’re arguing by just posting “someone disputes it.” Without giving merit to the argument.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Most of your hatred is based on a building. >>>[/quote]Tiribulus wrote a few days ago:[quote]<<< the theology of that church and the walking deadness of her members provided plenty of evidence of her anti Christian nature without resorting to playing the pedo/cover up card. >>>[/quote]pat wrote:[quote]<<< So what did he say ‘Good’ is?[/quote]He didn’t, but it won’t be what God, who alone has that prerogative says it is so what difference does it make? That is good which reflects His purpose and power and thereby advances His kingdom and glory. Created man, especially fallen, sinful created man, is breathtakingly ill equipped to utter so much as a single syllable in that regard on purpose from his own mind and being.
[/quote]
“the theology of that church and the walking deadness of her members provided plenty of evidence of her anti Christian nature without resorting to playing the pedo/cover up card.” ← Where is your evidence. You saying it doesn’t make it so, at all. I want concrete examples, because I believe your hatred of us to be purely emotive, no facts.
[/quote]
Saying so does not make it so?
Link to my holocaust denying please.
[/quote]
You do realise he’s talking to Tirib?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Most of your hatred is based on a building. >>>[/quote]Tiribulus wrote a few days ago:[quote]<<< the theology of that church and the walking deadness of her members provided plenty of evidence of her anti Christian nature without resorting to playing the pedo/cover up card. >>>[/quote]pat wrote:[quote]<<< So what did he say ‘Good’ is?[/quote]He didn’t, but it won’t be what God, who alone has that prerogative says it is so what difference does it make? That is good which reflects His purpose and power and thereby advances His kingdom and glory. Created man, especially fallen, sinful created man, is breathtakingly ill equipped to utter so much as a single syllable in that regard on purpose from his own mind and being.
[/quote]
When I deem something “good” because it is in harmony with something inside me so intrinsically and instinctively knowing what “good” is, isn’t that not from my own mind and being but from that divine spark that you would label the Holy Ghost?
Are you that caught up on labels, words, doctrines that is obfuscates the obvious truth?
If it’s good, I dare say it’s His “purpose and power”. You find it in a book, and surrender blind faith to it. I look around, and within, and I can find it just fine. Shhhh. Stop reading, quoting and preaching. Look around. You might just see it! 
Weren’t you yourself doing some good in your city? [/quote]
All attacks and other pettiness aside, I ask this sincerely: Good is, basically, what you decide it is? Let me know if I’m misdefining your position. If I’m not, then:
What happens when someone else’s “good” conflicts with your own? [/quote]
Good is not what I decide it is. Are you confusing “good” with “morality”. Because we both know, morality is relative to culture, time, and place. What’s moral here is not what is moral where you currently reside.
I’m not even claiming “I” know what “good” is - I claim to “know” by virtue of that spark (no matter what you want to call it - you might claim it the Holy Ghost) that I think that resides in each of us.
Yes, I think I know good when I see it. Do you care to give a better rebuttal than your predecessor? State a claim, and support it. Don’t argue by question; support your claim and give us an example of when two truly “goods” are in conflict. [/quote]
Wait wait wait.
I would certainly disagree that morality is relative to culture, or relative in any way whatsoever.
But before going there, I would like to know what the difference is that you find between morality and good. I’m not talking about values. I’m talking about morals.
[/quote]
First of all, you haven’t stated a claim. You’re just asking questions. Make a claim or provide a reasoned retort to my claim that I can tell good from bad.
I know you want to change the subject, but morality IS temporal. I’ll give you a brief example. You’re Christian correct? In the OT, girls as young as 3 were married off. Mary was thought to be 12-14 when she became pregnant. This was the norm of the day. Fast forward to 2011 and we wouldn’t dream allow an adult man to legally mate with a 14 year old (in this country - which brings me to my next point). Not only is morality temporal, it is geographical and cultural. I believe the lowest age of consent in the US is about 16, maybe 15 and usually those lower numbers have “modifiers” with respect to the difference with the older partner or marriage and such. There are numerous countries and territories in the world where the age of consent is lower - as low as 12.
The qualified term “morality” “in its “descriptive” sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society.”
You could attempt to argue that morality is not relative, to culture or otherwise, but by it’s very definition, you’d be wrong sir.
So let’s put aside this silly Q&A and have you make a claim or rebut mine. I say I can distinguish good from evil by that divine spark that I believe resides in us all. Rebut it.[/quote]
First, I’m not making any claims. I’m asking you to clarify your position. If you don’t want to answer my questions, you are more than free to ignore them.
Nor am I trying to rebut you or even debate with you about your original idea. I may well be in agreement with that. I want to see how you arrived there. If that is too much to ask, see above.
Now I do have to take you up on your examples of moral problems. What you presented was, as I warned of before, a value issue. Marrying an underaged girl (or boy, for that matter), is an issue of cultural values. And yes, these values are, indeed, temporal, relative, mutable. There is a moral issue attached to this issue, and that is, to wit, the idea that the child is being forced into a sexual relationship either against her will or before she is mature enough to offer true consent. This issue, I would contend, falls under the umbrella of rape. And rape, like murder, theft, cowardice, backstabbing, treachery, greed, selfishness and a number of other acts, is one that no society that, to my knowledge, has ever existed has ever been considered a virtue.
And that’s what I guess I’m wanting to find out. Is your “good” a moral, or a value?
On to your next post.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And THIS is why there are wars. Irreconcilable differences. Inflexible positions. And each one claims the truth. God is not there gentlemen. Sorry. [/quote]I disagree, now what?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Wait wait wait.
I would certainly disagree that morality is relative to culture, or relative in any way whatsoever.
But before going there, I would like to know what the difference is that you find between morality and good. I’m not talking about values. I’m talking about morals.
[/quote]
And at the risk of further “changing the subject” I will answer your final question, but I’d ask that you get back on track.
I already provided you with the definition of morality and morality is temporal, cultural, etc. It’s not my opinion, it’s the meaning of the word. So, I’ve already distinguished morality for you.
What is good?
Love is good. Humbleness is good. Grace is good. Fidelity is good. Loyalty is good.
[/quote]
Sure, those are virtues. More accurately, they are morals. You’ll get no argument from me that those are good. In all cases. Everywhere. No relativity about it.
You keep bringing my beliefs into it when I’m still not sure what it is you believe. There is nothing too concede yet. But, if it makes you feel better, like I said in my previous post, I may not even disagree with you for the most part.
Here is the definition of “moral” from the top of Dictionary.com:
mor·al
â?? â??/Ë?mÉ?rÉ?l, Ë?mÉ?r-/ Show Spelled[mawr-uhl, mor-] Show IPA
â??adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2.
expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3.
founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4.
capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5.
conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6.
virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7.
of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8.
resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
Now, I think the thing you’ll notice that stands out overall is the preponderance of the word “right.” Morals are “oughts,” they are something we should do. Values are opinions. What that means is this: If there is a “right,” contained within the definition of moral, it assumes a standard. A standard is just that, immutable, changeless, else it is not a standard and the words “right” and “wrong” (and therefore “good” and “bad” as well) cease to have any meaning.
So, while I agree with you that the examples of “good” you provided were indeed the same examples I hold, I’m still not convinced as to your differentiation of good from moral from simple opinion or desire.
And trust me, I don’t only reach my conclusions based upon the teachings of my church. Just as you, yourself are no island, nor is your moral code sprung forth from your forehead, fully developed and armored.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Most of your hatred is based on a building. >>>[/quote]Tiribulus wrote a few days ago:[quote]<<< the theology of that church and the walking deadness of her members provided plenty of evidence of her anti Christian nature without resorting to playing the pedo/cover up card. >>>[/quote]pat wrote:[quote]<<< So what did he say ‘Good’ is?[/quote]He didn’t, but it won’t be what God, who alone has that prerogative says it is so what difference does it make? That is good which reflects His purpose and power and thereby advances His kingdom and glory. Created man, especially fallen, sinful created man, is breathtakingly ill equipped to utter so much as a single syllable in that regard on purpose from his own mind and being.
[/quote]
“the theology of that church and the walking deadness of her members provided plenty of evidence of her anti Christian nature without resorting to playing the pedo/cover up card.” ← Where is your evidence. You saying it doesn’t make it so, at all. I want concrete examples, because I believe your hatred of us to be purely emotive, no facts.
[/quote]
Saying so does not make it so?
Link to my holocaust denying please.
[/quote]
You do realise he’s talking to Tirib?[/quote]
I dont care, everytime he chides someone for stating something without backing it up, I would like him to post a link to my holocaust denials.
Because, you knowm he seems to get quite condescending when someone posts things that are “short on facts and long on bias”, so he would never forego the oportunity to back a claim like that up, with the new search function and all.
I would also like to point out that Pat could not become a catholic priest because he was caught fondling altar boys.
That really should say all about every argumrent, if one uses the term generously, that he will ever make.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And THIS is why there are wars. Irreconcilable differences. Inflexible positions. And each one claims the truth. God is not there gentlemen. Sorry. [/quote]I disagree, now what?
[/quote]
We agree to disagree and move on.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
First, I’m not making any claims. I’m asking you to clarify your position. If you don’t want to answer my questions, you are more than free to ignore them.
Nor am I trying to rebut you or even debate with you about your original idea. I may well be in agreement with that. I want to see how you arrived there. If that is too much to ask, see above.
Now I do have to take you up on your examples of moral problems. What you presented was, as I warned of before, a value issue. Marrying an underaged girl (or boy, for that matter), is an issue of cultural values. And yes, these values are, indeed, temporal, relative, mutable. There is a moral issue attached to this issue, and that is, to wit, the idea that the child is being forced into a sexual relationship either against her will or before she is mature enough to offer true consent. This issue, I would contend, falls under the umbrella of rape. And rape, like murder, theft, cowardice, backstabbing, treachery, greed, selfishness and a number of other acts, is one that no society that, to my knowledge, has ever existed has ever been considered a virtue.
And that’s what I guess I’m wanting to find out. Is your “good” a moral, or a value?
On to your next post. [/quote]
I’ve already explained “how I arrived there”. If you missed it, I believe I and everyone else are imbued with that divine spark. That part of us which is “good” is from God. Therefore, I have answered your question on “how I arrived there”.
Next, you’re engaging in nit picking word play. Morals AND values are inextricably linked to one another. They are almost inseparable and to the extent that they are, they are by the thinnest of hairs. Sir, you are splitting hairs with me and you’re far from what you claim to be your original quest - “to understand how I got there”.
Values
Values are the rules by which we make decisions about right and wrong, should and shouldn’t, good and bad. They also tell us which are more or less important, which is useful when we have to trade off meeting one value over another.
Dictionary.com defines values as:
n : beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something); “he has very conservatives values”
Morals
Morals have a greater social element to values and tend to have a very broad acceptance. Morals are far more about good and bad than other values. We thus judge others more strongly on morals than values. A person can be described as immoral, yet there is no word for them not following values.
Dictionary.com defines morals as:
n : motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
Morals have a “greater social element”. Well, social constructs change, as well as laws.
Continuing, under your analysis of the underage girl above, they committed the crime of rape in beginning in the OT and continuing. Nevermind that “rape” is a crime defined solely by law and that laws, like morals change over time, and with culture.
Values are intrinsic to the person and they may be shaped by “morals”. Morals are intrinsic to the social structure or society; they are social or religious norms or right and wrong.
As to your closing question; asked and answered.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Wait wait wait.
I would certainly disagree that morality is relative to culture, or relative in any way whatsoever.
But before going there, I would like to know what the difference is that you find between morality and good. I’m not talking about values. I’m talking about morals.
[/quote]
And at the risk of further “changing the subject” I will answer your final question, but I’d ask that you get back on track.
I already provided you with the definition of morality and morality is temporal, cultural, etc. It’s not my opinion, it’s the meaning of the word. So, I’ve already distinguished morality for you.
What is good?
Love is good. Humbleness is good. Grace is good. Fidelity is good. Loyalty is good.
[/quote]
Sure, those are virtues. More accurately, they are morals. You’ll get no argument from me that those are good. In all cases. Everywhere. No relativity about it.
You keep bringing my beliefs into it when I’m still not sure what it is you believe. There is nothing too concede yet. But, if it makes you feel better, like I said in my previous post, I may not even disagree with you for the most part.
Here is the definition of “moral” from the top of Dictionary.com:
mor�·al
â?? â??/�?m�?r�?l, �?m�?r-/ Show Spelled[mawr-uhl, mor-] Show IPA
â??adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2.
expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3.
founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4.
capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5.
conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6.
virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7.
of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8.
resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
Now, I think the thing you’ll notice that stands out overall is the preponderance of the word “right.” Morals are “oughts,” they are something we should do. Values are opinions. What that means is this: If there is a “right,” contained within the definition of moral, it assumes a standard. A standard is just that, immutable, changeless, else it is not a standard and the words “right” and “wrong” (and therefore “good” and “bad” as well) cease to have any meaning.
So, while I agree with you that the examples of “good” you provided were indeed the same examples I hold, I’m still not convinced as to your differentiation of good from moral from simple opinion or desire.
And trust me, I don’t only reach my conclusions based upon the teachings of my church. Just as you, yourself are no island, nor is your moral code sprung forth from your forehead, fully developed and armored. [/quote]
Pretty much asked and answered in my previous reply.
I’m waiting to see what your next reply is now that I’ve told you clearly “how I got there” and, whether you intend to continue to split the hairs separating “morals” from “values” and explain to me what that has to do with the topic.
And again, values are intrinsic to the individual, morals are intrinsic to the society. Society changes; it changes with time, location and custom. Values and morals are two sides of the exact same coin.
Now that I’ve answered your alleged question “how did I get there”, what next?
No, the difference between morals and values is not “splitting hairs.”
From your quote: Morals are far more about good and bad than other values. We thus judge others more strongly on morals than values. A person can be described as immoral, yet there is no word for them not following values.
Morals are about right and wrong, values are the way we go about justifying whether something is right or wrong. That is a very big difference, and it is not the difference between societies and individuals. Each applies to both. And the distinction between the two is essential to your claim, I am far from nowhere I do not intend to be.
Now, why is this important? Because you are claiming an absolute good and in the same breath proposing a relative morality. Well, if there is an absolute good, then what value does relative morality have? Is this morality just another word for “what humans do given their circumstances and inclinations at a given time?”
Stated differently: Morals = Virtues. Substitute the word “virtues” for “morality” in the above paragraph and look at what happens.
Yes, I really am going somewhere with this and I really do know where it is I am going. Like I keep saying, if you don’t want to continue answering my questions, you are welcome to bow out.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
No, the difference between morals and values is not “splitting hairs.”
From your quote: Morals are far more about good and bad than other values. We thus judge others more strongly on morals than values. A person can be described as immoral, yet there is no word for them not following values.
Morals are about right and wrong, values are the way we go about justifying whether something is right or wrong. That is a very big difference, and it is not the difference between societies and individuals. Each applies to both. And the distinction between the two is essential to your claim, I am far from nowhere I do not intend to be.
Now, why is this important? Because you are claiming an absolute good and in the same breath proposing a relative morality. Well, if there is an absolute good, then what value does relative morality have? Is this morality just another word for “what humans do given their circumstances and inclinations at a given time?”
Stated differently: Morals = Virtues. Substitute the word “virtues” for “morality” in the above paragraph and look at what happens.
Yes, I really am going somewhere with this and I really do know where it is I am going. Like I keep saying, if you don’t want to continue answering my questions, you are welcome to bow out. [/quote]
Make your point. I’m not debating the thin distinguishing line between morals and values. If you’d like, start a thread about it and I’ll happily chime in. I’ve answered your question. If you have a point, make it. Otherwise, as you say, “bow out”.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
No, the difference between morals and values is not “splitting hairs.”
From your quote: Morals are far more about good and bad than other values. We thus judge others more strongly on morals than values. A person can be described as immoral, yet there is no word for them not following values.
Morals are about right and wrong, values are the way we go about justifying whether something is right or wrong. That is a very big difference, and it is not the difference between societies and individuals. Each applies to both. And the distinction between the two is essential to your claim, I am far from nowhere I do not intend to be.
Now, why is this important? Because you are claiming an absolute good and in the same breath proposing a relative morality. Well, if there is an absolute good, then what value does relative morality have? Is this morality just another word for “what humans do given their circumstances and inclinations at a given time?”
Stated differently: Morals = Virtues. Substitute the word “virtues” for “morality” in the above paragraph and look at what happens.
Yes, I really am going somewhere with this and I really do know where it is I am going. Like I keep saying, if you don’t want to continue answering my questions, you are welcome to bow out. [/quote]
By the way, YOU constructed the strawman of me relating morals to an absolute good. I did no such thing. So again, either continue with your thesis on morals and values, or make your point relative to my position that I INTRINSICALLY know what is “good” and what is “evil”.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
No, the difference between morals and values is not “splitting hairs.”
From your quote: Morals are far more about good and bad than other values. We thus judge others more strongly on morals than values. A person can be described as immoral, yet there is no word for them not following values.
Morals are about right and wrong, values are the way we go about justifying whether something is right or wrong. That is a very big difference, and it is not the difference between societies and individuals. Each applies to both. And the distinction between the two is essential to your claim, I am far from nowhere I do not intend to be.
Now, why is this important? Because you are claiming an absolute good and in the same breath proposing a relative morality. Well, if there is an absolute good, then what value does relative morality have? Is this morality just another word for “what humans do given their circumstances and inclinations at a given time?”
Stated differently: Morals = Virtues. Substitute the word “virtues” for “morality” in the above paragraph and look at what happens.
Yes, I really am going somewhere with this and I really do know where it is I am going. Like I keep saying, if you don’t want to continue answering my questions, you are welcome to bow out. [/quote]
And I can’t resist. If morals are as you say about absolute right and wrong, and they are unequivocal as you imply, we can reasonably conclude that many bible teachings were immoral. Or, did I miss the commandment about not taking and, in your words, “raping” a 12 year old bride?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yes, I really am going somewhere with this [/quote]
And I sincerely hope it’s not to some Catholic doctrine like having sex only to procreate. Thus, sex without procreation would be immoral?
How long have you been having sex and how many children do you have ?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
No, the difference between morals and values is not “splitting hairs.”
From your quote: Morals are far more about good and bad than other values. We thus judge others more strongly on morals than values. A person can be described as immoral, yet there is no word for them not following values.
Morals are about right and wrong, values are the way we go about justifying whether something is right or wrong. That is a very big difference, and it is not the difference between societies and individuals. Each applies to both. And the distinction between the two is essential to your claim, I am far from nowhere I do not intend to be.
Now, why is this important? Because you are claiming an absolute good and in the same breath proposing a relative morality. Well, if there is an absolute good, then what value does relative morality have? Is this morality just another word for “what humans do given their circumstances and inclinations at a given time?”
Stated differently: Morals = Virtues. Substitute the word “virtues” for “morality” in the above paragraph and look at what happens.
Yes, I really am going somewhere with this and I really do know where it is I am going. Like I keep saying, if you don’t want to continue answering my questions, you are welcome to bow out. [/quote]
By the way, YOU constructed the strawman of me relating morals to an absolute good. I did no such thing. So again, either continue with your thesis on morals and values, or make your point relative to my position that I INTRINSICALLY know what is “good” and what is “evil”. [/quote]
Sorry, wait, whut?
You did not claim that you believe there does exist an absolute good? And you also did not claim that morals are relative?
I’ll happily make my point tomorrow afternoon (it’s pretty late here), but let’s not go creating some fantasy scenario of me creating fantasy scenarios. I’ve been civil up to this point, I’d appreciate your returning that civility.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yes, I really am going somewhere with this [/quote]
And I sincerely hope it’s not to some Catholic doctrine like having sex only to procreate. Thus, sex without procreation would be immoral?
How long have you been having sex and how many children do you have ? :)[/quote]
I never claimed that I am any sort of paragon of morality. Where did you get that?