Of the differences between individual morality and societal morality.
Given your question was specifically “what if society was okay with it” you tied my hands on whether or not it’s societally moral.
Wasn’t a gotcha.
We do agree, it takes faith to believe an act is inherently good or evil.
Haha I’ll keep harping on it if you do. We do not agree. No faith needed
Saying something is inherently evil removes it from being a personal opinion.
Well most people don’t disregard it just like other things people have differing opinions of. That doesn’t change anything I said. It’s a super old book no one has any idea what to do with. 0 consistency. And people wonder why I can’t just believe. My rational brain needs a lot more.
I also love how rape, murder, anything else on the Bible can get glossed over or have someone say “God didn’t mean it like that.”
When it comes to gays? “Oh no Gods word is clear! If we know one thing it’s God hates gay sex!”
Saying something is inherently evil merely needs to fit into that person’s world view. Still no faith needed.
All those things are found within humanity, with or without the bible. Heck, if the bible is entirely man made, then humanity is ultimately the culprit. Not a reliable source for morality, either.
1 Like
Pfury, I really think you’re overlooking the inherent part.
Ayyyyyyy now we agree on something!
Nah I’m not. I’m just self aware
To say something is inherent to the act is to say it is outside of personal or social opinion. Outside of human opinion.
1 Like
Like saying rights are inherent to us. An inherent obligation to feed the poor. Not “I emotionally feel these are good things, despite intellectually realizing it doesn’t make it true.”
So now we must rely on empirical tools to check this. Oh, we can’t. So, faith is left if we’re going to continue.
Again, if the position is that there are no inherently evil or good acts, fine.
This is inherently wrong.
1 Like
I’m not sure what you mean by a reliable source for morality. If anything I think we’ve shown it clearly can’t be the Bible. No one knows what it means, people ignore parts, people make explanations for the words it has. People don’t have the same morals and values anyway and never have.
And yes I agree humanity is the culprit for writing the Bible. I suppose we can also say it’s humanity’s fault for the number of duped.
1 Like
Well, we at least agree humanity isn’t a “good” source for morality.
1 Like
It’s the only source which means good or bad are irrelevant.
1 Like
It’s actually a very good and reliable source for morality. It can be adapted to fit all circumstances.
Supper time, catch you all later!
I agree.
It strikes me as odd that people spent so much time being morally outraged (that’s how it feels on this end, sorry) at me for suggesting that it takes faith to believe there are inherent moral obligations and inherently evil acts. Only for everyone to argue that morality is in the eye of the beholder. It depends on the lens. A subjective individual or social opinion that has other basis in reality. Etc. Then why do you keep addressing me!