Actually I said you need to present intelligence. I made no comment about whether or not you have any.
That being said, this comment shouldn’t have been necessary.
Which, in reality, means we have to decide what He would say is just, even though we don’t really know what He would say since He doesn’t tell us, and any writings attributed to Him (and His son) are open to interpretation which means, in reality, that what we believe He wants somehow happens to coincide with what we wanted in the first place to be true. So if you were an Israelite slitting the throat of a baby (because he happened to be a male offspring of the enemy) or a female who was no longer a virgin (so she wouldn’t make an appropriate sex slave) it makes you feel better about things when you can say God said it was OK.
1 Like
You know why I say certain things to you? It’s because people here answer your questions but you never answer theirs. This leads me to believe you simply post opinions and arguments you find on the internet while lacking the ability to answer questions since that would require you had knowledge and the ability to reason.
That’s a lie. You are here to post opinions and not be challenged about them.
This is why I believe you are a teen. It’s just the internet; if it makes you feel good about yourself when you “win,” then you need a new hobby.
1 Like
You could say that about the whole Bible.
Nope. One example:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3Fsearch=Exodus%2B20&version=NIV&interface=amp
According to whoever wrote that it was God’s words.
Looks like I missed a lot. Not that I want to participate in this theological discussion. But Sloth’s totally on point. Moral relativism is a fail because it can be used to justify anything. Just depends on how you feel about it. And therefore criticizing others for feeling one way when you feel another is pointless, unless of course you’re better than the other person, then you win.
I don’t think you know what you are responding to. And no one is criticizing people for how they feel but for what they do.
Let me ask you a question. As snarky as I may or may not get, in whatever vastly different positions we may hold on a variety (some near and dear to me) of topics, have I ever implied I couldn’t be bothered to argue with you due your inability to meet some standard of intelligence?
For the most part I have tried to discuss these things with 4 different people. I am attempting to keep straight and address 4 different people. I had tried to focus on abortion and continously try to steer it away from being mired down in the bible (which I didn’t even use in my arguments). I came in here simply sticking to the position that abortion is objectively the premeditated killing of a human. I have flat out stated that that if one doesn’t believe an inherent value of human lives, or in moral obligations we are inherently bound to, or in objective and independently existing good and evil outside of ourselves, there isn’t much else for me to say.
Well, as long as that attidude was applied even to outlawing abortion. As in, there is also no inherent right to abortion, nor is it objectively evil to outlaw it. There is no inherent moral obligation to maintain its legality. We could agree there.
1 Like
This is a superficial way of looking at Hitler and the Third Reich. It leaves out other possibilities such as Hitler being insane. It also assumes that people won’t do the wrong thing believing that it is wrong. This was not the case in Nazi Germany.
A human? Human life? A human organism? You have not been consistent and it’s an important distinction to make.
To memory? Nah. But it’s rather insulting to claim to be interested in a morality themed debate, only to act like you don’t comprehend the difference between individual morality and societal morality.
Also, again, I didn’t say you didn’t have the intelligence. Merely that you weren’t bringing it to the discussion.
Reading my comments for what they said, instead of what you interpreted them to say, would have saved you much outrage.
Can the individual have the wrong moral position?
Wear a t-shirt which vilifies homosexuals and you’ll find out.
Can society have the wrong moral position?
Can a society only have one moral position?
Wrong when measured against what?
Does it matter, now? Or, you can say the individual is never wrong if you wish.
Is the individual or society wrong when in conflict?
Isn’t society a group of individuals?
Was pre-WW2 Germany antisemitic? There were German Jews. So Germany could not have been antisemitic. There were antisemitic Germans however.