Quote:

---

Bah, that's such a copout. Philosophical positions may lead to paradoxes, but they normally aren't paradoxes themselves.

---

This from someone who then says:

Quote:

---

You guys are the ones saying relativism is an absolute truth

---

This is nonsensical...

No one is saying relativism is an absolute truth, you just use bizare extremes to attemp to reduce our arguments.

Anyway, regardless of that, how do you respond to my earlier point, that morality ought to flexible, to allow chnaging moral standards to suit various present and future circumstances? If all morality is absolute, then it can never change.

Who then determines the absolute moral code? You? The Bible? Because as shown before, the Bible is full of contradictory moral statements. On one hand, the OT says we should murder homosexuals, and Jesus in the NT says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (paraphrased).

The Bible then implicitly confirms that morality is relative; it is dependent on context.

I find the most basic and unshakable form of morality is the simplest.

For example.. the ten commandments (oh I know I am I gonna get it for this but):

Thou shalt not kill

This does not contain any ambiguity. It does not say..thou shalt not kill...humans... or thou shalt not kill.. animal. It says Thou shalt not kill.

Meaning.. Dont kill...anything which lives.

This is because.. you wouldnt want someone to kill you..right? it's painful and permanent.

The best way to evaluate what is right and what is wrong is to truly put yourself on the recieving end of the questionable infraction..and evaluate whether or not you'd like them to do that infraction to you, you being the victim or recieving end of immediately subsequences.

The next time you ask.. "I wonder if there are acceptions to " thou shalt not kill/steal/ covet someones partner" because its so short a more that it appears elastic.. ask yourself.. if you were a bug, other man, other woman..would you want to be killed/ stolen from/ or have someone take you husband/wife.

If your answer as applies to yourself contains no ambigiuity, neither should your position about the activity whos morality youre questning.

We read into things and try to find elasticities and loopholes because its our nature to lean toward the wicke,d but in reality, simple right and wrong are not open to interpretation.. as they woulndt be open to interpretation if you were the victim or subject to be "questionably" wronged.

I find myself doing all sorts of wrongs.. on a daily basis sometimes.. but thats not because I dont know theyre wrong, or have to think about it.

Sadly I operate on a different system..one which includes good..evil..neccesary and unneccesary evil . These are personal things tho. I know right from wrong in most everything I do..but the above is where choice plays a part in me believing one thing and doing another .

But in the same OT, it prescribes death for homosexuals and others... the Bible itself is morally contradictory. And god kills poeple left and right ..the pillar of salt and all that jazz.. so if god doesnt obey his own commandments, what good are they?

Morality has to be flexible, partly becasue it must change to accept new ideas. For instance, homosexuality was considered widely immoral in the past, now most popel accept as morally ok, even if they dont approve of it themselves. This is an example of how flexible morality can save many poeple a lot of pain.

And, there is no one source everyone can agree on to establish an absolute morality, so therefore, any absolute moral code has to be imposed on everyone, making the whole system corrupt.

If people find homosexuality to be wrong, what harm did that do? I think you're attributing the hatefilled actions of the closeminded minority of people with anyone who says homosexuality is wrong.

So, let's say that instead of society saying homosexuality is ok, we all just agreed that even if we think its wrong to be homosexual, its just as wrong to hate someone for being homosexual. That would have saved all sorts of pain. What would be the difference?

Besides that it wouldn't have changed any absolutes. Hating people (for any reason) could just as well be an absolute.

I dunno I just know what to and not do to as a decent human being.

Typically I find the more flexible morale codes are, the more room for loopholes get found. And morals to me shouldnt be aubject to debate that way.

{edit: off-topic spam removed by request.}

Go away spammer.. we dont care about your propagandist garbage

why's this the only forum where the guest restriction is not applied to?