Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm not upset. But you're dangerously close to "define wet". In fact, you really are asking me to define "wet". In modern English the term is not ambiguous. So it is a bit annoying that you appear to be disingenuous (or, as the cartoon says, "head hurts").

Now asking me to define "immoral" is a worthy question. In its simplest form "moral" is pertaining to ethics, and/or to "right and wrong". I really don't like the word "moral", as I don't like "evil", because those words can have a lot of baggage. But they'll do so long as people remove that baggage.

I wanted to know what standard of morality you were using to compare your notion of moral with what is in the biblical text.

I already stated that. My standard involves empathy and not doing to others what I would find repulsive if done to me. In a nutshell.

God allowed for a time a less than ideal situation that already existed, regulated it to be more humane to ensure that the Hebrews treated others more fairly, and set out the ideal for them, i.e. no slavery.

Baloney. I was wondering if you'd dust off that apologist argument, and you did it. So the great and might god (according to your texts; don't want you to think I'm making stuff up) can't command that we don't own people as property? He can be concerned with how you cook baby goats, and murder, and such as that, but he can't make that simple edict? It's not as if people follow those edicts anyway. Murder is perhaps less common today than 2000 years ago, but it's still common. And he didn't have any compunction about banning that. Why bother banning anything with the presupposition that people will violate it anyway? So I say again: baloney. By the way, god STILL allows it. Nothing has changed except that our modern society DOESN'T allow it. As usual, secular society is way ahead of religion in regards to liberties and equality and not allowing -for example- priests to rape children (which is mostly, but not exclusively, a Catholic problem).

You seem to be comparing your morality and the Bibles to some objective standard to evaluate the two against, in order to pronounce one more "moral".

Not at all. There is no "objective standard". My morality is superior because it victimizes fewer people, it involves NOT doing repulsive things to people that I wouldn't like done to me, etc. I would not want to be a slave under EX or Lev, so I do not do that to others. But the bible says I can. Therefore my morality is superior. As is the morality of almost every person on the planet. A few would perhaps like slavery to continue, but they are an extremely small minority. I think a lot of them would be classified as psychopaths. (And, to be pedantic,

Alot of other things you said deserve a response, but that's what I got for now.

I'm not going anywhere. :-)

Both because of the virus, and because the final session of chemo has been delayed until 1poorlady is stronger. Hopefully next week so we can finish this thing. She's walking better today than she was Tues.
Print the post  


What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.