almeyda writes:
quote:
When society choose relativism over absolutes. Nothing can really be deemed right or wrong.
And yet, everybody does this. Even the most "moral" of people.
Question: Is killing wrong?
Even when it's to save your own life?
If you say that it's OK to kill someone to save your own life, then we've got an exception to that "absolute." It turns out that killing is not always wrong. In fact, up until the advent of advanced chemistry, the only for you to live is necessarily to kill something else. You need to eat to live and most of what you eat was once alive.
So we've got another exception to the absolute.
I won't even begin to go into the "moralists" who rant and rave about how human life is sacred and precious and thus abortion is inherently wrong but then go on to support the death penalty.
I'm sure if we were to examine your moral code closely, we would find a slew of exceptions to the "absolute" rules you claim to follow.
quote:
Without an absolute of ethics. An individual may choose his own standard because he disagrees with the majority.
That may be the case, but from whence comes this idea that the only way an absolute can exist is if it comes from god?
Monopoly has rules. Break them, and you're cheating. Get caught, and a range of penalty responses can arise from simple restitution to the game being ended. And yet, Monopoly is a man-made creation.
Thus, it is easily seen that absolute moral stances can easily be developed and created by humans without any assistance from a supernatural entity.
quote:
Christianity is a factual religion.
If so, then the world ended nearly 2000 years ago. Christ directly told some of the people to whom he was speaking that they would live to see the end of the world.
So which is it? Did the world end and this is hell (and no wonder you're so cranky) or are there 2000-year-old people wandering around?
Edited to correct a horrendous grammatical error.
This message has been edited by Rrhain, 06-28-2004 12:41 AM
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2
