The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Christian Fools


Subject:  Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date:  10/2/2012  2:30 PM
Author:  Frydaze1 Number:  183151 of 197560

Sure, you'd condemn any other group that promoted rape, but in your heart you'd know that they are just following what they think is best for them, and that makes it OK for them.

Do I have it right?

Not exactly. You seem to have skipped over this part:
Of course I believe that MY moral code is the best one. So I would also try to make other societies conform to it. But I don't kid myself that this makes it objective morality.

I do believe my moral code is the right one. I'd do more than condemn another society; I would do my best to change their morals to match my own. Because I believe mine are right, and anyone breaking my moral code is immoral.

That doesn't make it objective. It just means that my subjective opinion is very important to me.

Interesting. So it seems for you, morality boils down to subjective preference. Like one who prefers chocolate to vanilla, you prefer no rape to rape. "Morality" has no more meaning or weight than that.

I will say that you are at least consistent with an atheist view. I was beginning to think that you felt there was *really* something *wrong* with raping little girls. But as you explain, you don't delude yourself into thinking there is something objective about what you and your social group prefer.

Hike up your pants a little. Your attitude is showing.

There is nothing in the bible against raping little girls. Yet you believe it is wrong. If you believe that god is the source of all morality, and the bible is the only written guide to the mind of god, then you have ZERO basis for thinking that raping little girls is wrong. And yet you do. And you believe it more strongly than a chocolate versus vanilla preference. But you can't point to any reason for your belief. And other Christians will (and do) disagree with you. And, if fact, sup