Jesus - Islam Perspective

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[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]

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]

Now who’s creating strawmen? I am pretty sure I never specifically came down on one side of any issue. I stated where the moral issue lies, and what the point of contention would be. The moral issue is “rape is bad.” It will take a value judgment to decide individual cases.

:wink:

242

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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]

I stated both but I did not tie the two together - you made that construction. And yes, I reiterate, morals are relative. Some of the greatest philosophers have posited such and I believe it.

I don’t much care about your feigned civility sir. It seems to me you find joy in following me around in threads and attacking me because: 1. You don’t like me and 2. Because you disagree with me.

If you have a point to make, please commence to making it. If you stick to an actual argument (and not an attack or fallacious argument), you will find the need for feigned civility completely disappears.

243

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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?
[/quote]

I’m trying to get you to your point. Your personal morality is neither a concern of mine nor is it under attack from me. I merely reject your Church soooo, if that’s where your point is going…

244

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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]

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]

Now who’s creating strawmen? I am pretty sure I never specifically came down on one side of any issue. I stated where the moral issue lies, and what the point of contention would be. The moral issue is “rape is bad.” It will take a value judgment to decide individual cases.

:wink:
[/quote]

I see in spite of 3 new posts, you still haven’t gotten around to making your alleged point.

I didn’t create a strawman. I made a logical deduction based on your opinions expressed thus far. If you’re not comfortable with the logical conclusion, perhaps you should reconsider some of the opinions you have expressed.

You said morality is not malleable (my word) and that it is not temporal or cultural.

Biblical history (and extra-biblical history) tell us it was a practice to give a child to marriage at a very young age and, that sexual intercourse with “women”, including the venerated Mary herself, at the tender age of 12.

You equated the above with “rape” - which by the way is a crime defined by law but I digress.

So I ask you again, following your own analysis, did not the Bible sanction immorality? Did not the Bible sanction rape? Or was fucking a 12 year old back then merely a “value” judgment and it was otherwise “moral”? You’re the one that stated morality has no temporal relation.

At any rate, you’ve managed to turn this into a debate about the thin line between morality and values and you’ve…ta da! “Changed the subject”! If you actually have a point regarding my assertion that I believe that we all have that divine spark imbued within us, please make it. I’ll be happy to discuss it.

245

[quote]orion wrote:
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]

Actually Pat can’t become a Catholic Priest because the Church in its current policy does not ordain married men to the priesthood.

246

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
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]

Actually Pat can’t become a Catholic Priest because the Church in its current policy does not ordain married men to the priesthood.[/quote]

No, that was after his pederast inclinations became public.

She is just his “beard”, he faps to the prepupescent youngsters.

Vigorously.

247

No, that was after his pederast inclinations became public.

She is just his “beard”, he faps to the prepupescent youngsters.

Vigorously.

[/quote]This is in extremely poor taste man to say the very least. Pat and I don’t see eye to eye on almost anything, but I would never say something like this about him, even in jest. It’s not funny.

248

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:<<< Actually Pat can’t become a Catholic Priest because the Church in its current policy does not ordain married men to the priesthood.

No, that was after his pederast inclinations became public.

She is just his “beard”, he faps to the prepupescent youngsters.

Vigorously.

[/quote]This is in extremely poor taste man to say the very least. Pat and I don’t see eye to eye on almost anything, but I would never say something like this about him, even in jest. It’s not funny.
[/quote]

Am I to blame because he likes the boybutts?

Surely not.

I claimed it on the interwebz and that makes it so and your rather selective moral outrage amuses me.

249

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
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]

Actually Pat can’t become a Catholic Priest because the Church in its current policy does not ordain married men to the priesthood.[/quote]

No, that was after his pederast inclinations became public.

She is just his “beard”, he faps to the prepupescent youngsters.

Vigorously.

[/quote]

damn, sick fantasies…

250

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
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]

Actually Pat can’t become a Catholic Priest because the Church in its current policy does not ordain married men to the priesthood.[/quote]

No, that was after his pederast inclinations became public.

She is just his “beard”, he faps to the prepupescent youngsters.

Vigorously.

[/quote]

damn, sick fantasies…[/quote]

Yeah, I know, right?

He needs help.

251

[quote]orion wrote:Am I to blame because he likes the boybutts?

Surely not.

I claimed it on the interwebz and that makes it so and your rather selective moral outrage amuses me.[/quote]I would say the same if it were pointed at you. I repeat, it’s not funny.

252

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:Am I to blame because he likes the boybutts?

Surely not.

I claimed it on the interwebz and that makes it so and your rather selective moral outrage amuses me.[/quote]I would say the same if it were pointed at you. I repeat, it’s not funny.
[/quote]

Well then, let me direct you to this post:

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_muslim_holocaust?id=4421526&pageNo=5

Fourth post from the bottom.

Since he refuses to point to the evidence that would make me a holocaust denier, and not for my lack of asking him to provide some evidence, I can only assume that his obsession with the juvenile male posteriors consumes him completely.

253

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:Am I to blame because he likes the boybutts?

Surely not.

I claimed it on the interwebz and that makes it so and your rather selective moral outrage amuses me.[/quote]I would say the same if it were pointed at you. I repeat, it’s not funny.
[/quote]

Well then, let me direct you to this post:

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_muslim_holocaust?id=4421526&pageNo=5

Fourth post from the bottom.

Since he refuses to point to the evidence that would make me a holocaust denier, and not for my lack of asking him to provide some evidence, I can only assume that his obsession with the juvenile male posteriors consumes him completely. [/quote]I understand your point now, but I still wouldn’t make it this way if it were me.

254

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:Am I to blame because he likes the boybutts?

Surely not.

I claimed it on the interwebz and that makes it so and your rather selective moral outrage amuses me.[/quote]I would say the same if it were pointed at you. I repeat, it’s not funny.
[/quote]

Well then, let me direct you to this post:

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_muslim_holocaust?id=4421526&pageNo=5

Fourth post from the bottom.

Since he refuses to point to the evidence that would make me a holocaust denier, and not for my lack of asking him to provide some evidence, I can only assume that his obsession with the juvenile male posteriors consumes him completely. [/quote]I understand your point now, but I still wouldn’t make it this way if it were me.
[/quote]

Yeah well, this is why I am me and not you.

Not only do I refuse to stay classy, I am more than happy to outpig the pigs in their own shit infested mudpit.

You see, behaving like a troglodyte comes entirely natural to me, it is the occasional reason and composure that takes some work.

Of course, Pat does not have this option, he is what he is.

255

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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]

I stated both but I did not tie the two together - you made that construction. And yes, I reiterate, morals are relative. Some of the greatest philosophers have posited such and I believe it.

[/quote]

Okay, here is your post, whence the good/morality issue arose:

[i]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…[/i]

I just wanted to make clear that you are the one that originally brought morality into the picture. I was happy with the word “good” up to that point.

I’ll address the second half of this below.

Okay.

[quote]

If you have a point to make, please commence to making it. If you stick to an actual argument (and not an attack or fallacious argument), you will find the need for feigned civility completely disappears. [/quote]

I have not once attacked you and any claims at fallaciousness are flimsy at best. My dialog up to this point has been about as fallacious as anything Socrates said or Plato wrote.

Anyway, since you have been so persistent in my coming to the point, I will indulge you:

Your claim to recognition of the “good” is about as good as any other person’s, religious or otherwise. It is certainly not “better” than any religion’s, and I would wager that, although you appear to imply that you reach your conclusions due to or with the help of a divine spark (Holy Spirit, God, whatever), I would contest your implication that it is innate, and would challenge you to refute that you’ve not just borrowed your “good” wholesale from the religions of the world.

The reason that the arc of the dialog appeared to go off track is probably because I cannot see any way that you can possibly separate “good” and “moral,” without twisting logic into pretzels. Far from splitting hairs, it is the essence of my point: There is no difference in what is absolutely good and what is moral. Labeling morality as relative is a fallacy on its face, anyway, as to have a discussion of morality in the first place, you still have to judge that morality by some standard. And if said standard is anything other than timeless, immutable, and concrete, it ceases to be a standard.

256

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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]

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]

Now who’s creating strawmen? I am pretty sure I never specifically came down on one side of any issue. I stated where the moral issue lies, and what the point of contention would be. The moral issue is “rape is bad.” It will take a value judgment to decide individual cases.

:wink:
[/quote]

I see in spite of 3 new posts, you still haven’t gotten around to making your alleged point.

I didn’t create a strawman. I made a logical deduction based on your opinions expressed thus far. If you’re not comfortable with the logical conclusion, perhaps you should reconsider some of the opinions you have expressed.

You said morality is not malleable (my word) and that it is not temporal or cultural.

Biblical history (and extra-biblical history) tell us it was a practice to give a child to marriage at a very young age and, that sexual intercourse with “women”, including the venerated Mary herself, at the tender age of 12.

You equated the above with “rape” - which by the way is a crime defined by law but I digress.

So I ask you again, following your own analysis, did not the Bible sanction immorality? Did not the Bible sanction rape? Or was fucking a 12 year old back then merely a “value” judgment and it was otherwise “moral”? You’re the one that stated morality has no temporal relation.
[/quote]

Who’s splitting hairs now?

Let me try again: Rape falls under the eighth commandment prohibition against theft (Seventh commandment applies in some instances as well, obviously).

If you want to quote some passages for me where the Bible is condoning actions that are contrary to the seventh or eighth commandment, I’ll be happy to humor you. Otherwise, this is just, uhh, changing the subject.

258

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Not only do I refuse to stay classy, I am more than happy to outpig the pigs in their own shit infested mudpit.

You see, behaving like a troglodyte comes entirely natural to me, it is the occasional reason and composure that takes some work.

[/quote]

Congratulations. That’s really something to be proud of.

I’m sure that it will sow what you deserve in life.

And I’m done talking with you until my disqust with you passes. [/quote]

Promises, promises.

259

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I have not once attacked you and any claims at fallaciousness are flimsy at best. My dialog up to this point has been about as fallacious as anything Socrates said or Plato wrote.

Anyway, since you have been so persistent in my coming to the point, I will indulge you:

Your claim to recognition of the “good” is about as good as any other person’s, religious or otherwise. It is certainly not “better” than any religion’s, and I would wager that, although you appear to imply that you reach your conclusions due to or with the help of a divine spark (Holy Spirit, God, whatever), I would contest your implication that it is innate, and would challenge you to refute that you’ve not just borrowed your “good” wholesale from the religions of the world.

The reason that the arc of the dialog appeared to go off track is probably because I cannot see any way that you can possibly separate “good” and “moral,” without twisting logic into pretzels. Far from splitting hairs, it is the essence of my point: There is no difference in what is absolutely good and what is moral. Labeling morality as relative is a fallacy on its face, anyway, as to have a discussion of morality in the first place, you still have to judge that morality by some standard. And if said standard is anything other than timeless, immutable, and concrete, it ceases to be a standard.

[/quote]

Well, I’ll first say that maybe you should choose another “standard” by which to judge because “morality” isn’t it. I didn’t make up relative morality and some of our greatest philosophers have pondered such and found it to be true. You may want morality to be timeless, but it’s not. It’s not even universal at this exact moment. Morality is intrinsic to culture and diversity of culture and custom abounds on this globe. I’m not going to continue to debate “values” v. “morals” because it’s not the point of this thread and it has nothing to do with my point. Start a thread about it and debate it to your heart is content. It’s not a bad topic.

Now, back to my point:

I have already stated that I believe in that COMMON truth expressed in all religions throughout time. I’ve said this on more than one occasion. Take any of them, remove myth, fantasy, exaggeration, allegory, transliteration, mistakes, lies, inventions, etc. (in other words, all the acts of man) and all our religions have a common theme and for me, therein lies the “truth”.

As for you assertion that I have “borrowed” my sense of “good” from those religions is incorrect. I know good when I see it. I can feel it in the deepest part of my being. But I appreciate you telling me from Japan, over the internet, with the benefit of a few posts, where my sense of “good” comes from.

Did you really come here to quibble with me about where or how I feel what I feel? To torture the difference between morality and values? You say you had a point. What was it? What’s the point other than the fact that when I post, you seem to mysteriously appear and muddy the water? Is this like the “stalking” you accused me of when for the 2nd time in my entire history on T-Nation I disagreed with your buddy Pat on the matter of physics by simply uttering “stop it”?

The point of all this back and forth was for you to tell me I got my sense of good and evil from religion? And to debate the difference between morality and values?

I disagree with your conclusions. Now what?

260

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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]

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]

Now who’s creating strawmen? I am pretty sure I never specifically came down on one side of any issue. I stated where the moral issue lies, and what the point of contention would be. The moral issue is “rape is bad.” It will take a value judgment to decide individual cases.

:wink:
[/quote]

I see in spite of 3 new posts, you still haven’t gotten around to making your alleged point.

I didn’t create a strawman. I made a logical deduction based on your opinions expressed thus far. If you’re not comfortable with the logical conclusion, perhaps you should reconsider some of the opinions you have expressed.

You said morality is not malleable (my word) and that it is not temporal or cultural.

Biblical history (and extra-biblical history) tell us it was a practice to give a child to marriage at a very young age and, that sexual intercourse with “women”, including the venerated Mary herself, at the tender age of 12.

You equated the above with “rape” - which by the way is a crime defined by law but I digress.

So I ask you again, following your own analysis, did not the Bible sanction immorality? Did not the Bible sanction rape? Or was fucking a 12 year old back then merely a “value” judgment and it was otherwise “moral”? You’re the one that stated morality has no temporal relation.
[/quote]

Who’s splitting hairs now?

Let me try again: Rape falls under the eighth commandment prohibition against theft (Seventh commandment applies in some instances as well, obviously).

If you want to quote some passages for me where the Bible is condoning actions that are contrary to the seventh or eighth commandment, I’ll be happy to humor you. Otherwise, this is just, uhh, changing the subject.
[/quote]

It’s not changing the subject. You equated the bondage of promising a 3 year old into marriage or sex with a 12 year old wife as “rape”. Do you want me to go back and quote you? Will that be necessary? Since you called either one or both of the foregoing “rape” (I don’t know which, I do not believe you were clear) and both occurred in biblical stories (Mary was believed to be about 12 when she became pregnant, 14 at the latest), I ask you again; does the bible sanction immorality?

And now you’re mixing “morality” with the “law”. The Commandments are the law - not a comprehensive code of morality. The 1st four commandments are absolutely nonstarters on the issue of morality. 5-9 arguably constitute moral guidance and 10 is certainly questionable. So out of 10 commandments, we have maybe 5 that speak to morality? Is that all? All of our moral code captured in those 5? Is that what you wish to measure “good” and “evil” against?

If that is what you measure good and evil against, I assure you my compass does not rely on those 5 simple edicts. And before you bore me with your Church’s expanded interpretation of those commandments - don’t. I reject your Church. I take those commandments at their plain meaning, no more and no less as written. Which means if I desire to follow the 10th commandment, I will not, in part, covet my neighbor’s ox!

And, I disagree that “rape” falls under the purview of the 8th commandment. Perhaps that’s your Church’s “divinely inspired” and expanded interpretation of the 8th commandment, but I’ll simply rely on the fact that raping someone is a bit more than just merely “stealing”.

We disagree. Is any further bickering necessary?