The virgin birth

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,10:39)

I think mohammad was absolutely immoral.  You might notice that the adjective 'absolute' in this case was being applied to my thinking, not to the concept of 'immoral'. Islam: the religion for those who share mohammad's illiteracy. Stuart

Do you think what you said about Muhammad is Absolutely True?

[Stu]

No. I think it to be the most likely version of history.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,14:34)

No.  I think it to be the most likely version of history. Stuart

I'm glad you admit that you don't KNOW what you're talking about.

[Stu]

How is that an admission that I don't know what I am talking about? It is more than a statement that I do: it is an appreciation for the uncertainties involved in epistemology. I do not adhere blindly to received mythology, but question it in order to improve the quality of the knowledge.

The question rebounds on you: do you have anything to suggest you make conclusions based on a critical assessment?

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,18:20)

How is that an admission that I don't know what I am talking about?  It is more than a statement that I do: it is an appreciation for the uncertainties involved in epistemology.  I do not adhere blindly to received mythology, but question it in order to improve the quality of the knowledge. The question rebounds on you: do you have anything to suggest you make conclusions based on a critical assessment? Stuart

Logic and Reality, it seems like you read one too many Anne rand books and then messed your mind up with Kant

You don't believe in OBJECTIVE reality?

Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant

Now, I have found God to exist and interact through reason and experience, In Islam there is no blind Faith, you must study and know that God is Real, having faith only in what we know.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,18:20)

How is that an admission that I don't know what I am talking about?  It is more than a statement that I do: it is an appreciation for the uncertainties involved in epistemology.  I do not adhere blindly to received mythology, but question it in order to improve the quality of the knowledge. The question rebounds on you: do you have anything to suggest you make conclusions based on a critical assessment? Stuart

Quote

I think it to be

Does not make it so

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 29 2010,06:35)

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,18:20) How is that an admission that I don't know what I am talking about?  It is more than a statement that I do: it is an appreciation for the uncertainties involved in epistemology.  I do not adhere blindly to received mythology, but question it in order to improve the quality of the knowledge. The question rebounds on you: do you have anything to suggest you make conclusions based on a critical assessment? Stuart Quote I think it to be Does not make it so

Exactly right.

So there go most of the arguments you have made here.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 29 2010,05:21)

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,18:20) How is that an admission that I don't know what I am talking about?  It is more than a statement that I do: it is an appreciation for the uncertainties involved in epistemology.  I do not adhere blindly to received mythology, but question it in order to improve the quality of the knowledge. The question rebounds on you: do you have anything to suggest you make conclusions based on a critical assessment? Stuart Logic and Reality, it seems like you read one too many Anne rand books and then messed your mind up with Kant You don't believe in OBJECTIVE reality? Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant Now, I have found God to exist and interact through reason and experience, In Islam there is no blind Faith, you must study and know that God is Real, having faith only in what we know.

Very glad to see you have begun on Kant.

Let me know when you get to his treatment of mathematics.

You have never had one single experience of god that cannot be explained perfectly well without gods. There is no valid reasoning for gods that does no start with the assumption that there are gods.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 29 2010,07:16)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 29 2010,06:35) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,18:20) How is that an admission that I don't know what I am talking about?  It is more than a statement that I do: it is an appreciation for the uncertainties involved in epistemology.  I do not adhere blindly to received mythology, but question it in order to improve the quality of the knowledge. The question rebounds on you: do you have anything to suggest you make conclusions based on a critical assessment? Stuart Quote I think it to be Does not make it so Exactly right. So there go most of the arguments you have made here. Stuart

Not at all, because I don't say I think it to be, I say “it is”

I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of GOD EXISTING.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 29 2010,07:19)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 29 2010,05:21) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,18:20) How is that an admission that I don't know what I am talking about?  It is more than a statement that I do: it is an appreciation for the uncertainties involved in epistemology.  I do not adhere blindly to received mythology, but question it in order to improve the quality of the knowledge. The question rebounds on you: do you have anything to suggest you make conclusions based on a critical assessment? Stuart Logic and Reality, it seems like you read one too many Anne rand books and then messed your mind up with Kant You don't believe in OBJECTIVE reality? Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant Now, I have found God to exist and interact through reason and experience, In Islam there is no blind Faith, you must study and know that God is Real, having faith only in what we know. Very glad to see you have begun on Kant. Let me know when you get to his treatment of mathematics. You have never had one single experience of god that cannot be explained perfectly well without gods.  There is no valid reasoning for gods that does no start with the assumption that there are gods. Stuart

Actually my journey to realizing God as being ACTUAL started from where you are now with the assumption that there are no gods.

And of course you could not possibly know what experiences I have had or the Quality of them, if you studied Kant you would know that you cannot know my experience.

I have studied all these philosophies before and I love mathematics as I already told you perhaps someone else would be impressed by you feigning knowledge but not I, sir.

Idea of God
Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, “we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…”,[48] but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the “ideal of the supreme good.” The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and “is necessary from the practical point of view”;[49] compare Voltaire: “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”[50] In the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote “One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose” (9:93, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590-91).

Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor. Meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.

Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of Christianity that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967).[51]

Kant certainly believed in God the way a Muslim does

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 29 2010,07:35)

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 29 2010,07:16) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 29 2010,06:35) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,18:20) How is that an admission that I don't know what I am talking about?  It is more than a statement that I do: it is an appreciation for the uncertainties involved in epistemology.  I do not adhere blindly to received mythology, but question it in order to improve the quality of the knowledge. The question rebounds on you: do you have anything to suggest you make conclusions based on a critical assessment? Stuart Quote I think it to be Does not make it so Exactly right. So there go most of the arguments you have made here. Stuart Not at all, because I don't say I think it to be, I say “it is” I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of GOD EXISTING.

And as you also just said, you thinking it does not make it right.

I am not absulutely certain that your god does not exist, but I think the probability of it being real is so small that you may as well conclude it does not exist.

I base my view on both evidence, and the evidence that we would expect to have if the god you describe was real.

You just assert that it is true.

I assert that it probably isn't.

That is 2-1 to me: my assertion plus all the evidence, against your assertion. I could be wrong, but how would you know if you were wrong? You have dangerously shut the door on the possibility that following this path you are taking is only invoking the extreme wrath of your god. You don't actually know that it isn't.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 29 2010,07:46)

Actually my journey to realizing God as being ACTUAL started from where you are now with the assumption that there are no gods. And of course you could not possibly know what experiences I have had or the Quality of them, if you studied Kant you would know that you cannot know my experience. I have studied all these philosophies before and I love mathematics as I already told you perhaps someone else would be impressed by you feigning knowledge but not I, sir. Idea of God Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, “we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…”,[48] but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the “ideal of the supreme good.” The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and “is necessary from the practical point of view”;[49] compare Voltaire: “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”[50] In the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote “One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose” (9:93, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590-91). Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor. Meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code. Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of Christianity that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967).[51] Kant  certainly believed in God the way a Muslim does

I don't pretend to be able to replicate your experiences, but all I ever claimed was to be able to explain them in empirical and rational terms, without invoking gods, which I think can be done.

So what about “what you have studied”? You claimed to know about natural selection but you don't. The proof is in the accuracy and understanding in what you type, not in what classes you claim to have enrolled in.

Regarding Kant believing as you do,
He said:

“we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…”,

And you said:

I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of GOD EXISTING.

Do YOU think like a muslim??

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 30 2010,07:56)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 29 2010,07:35) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 29 2010,07:16) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 29 2010,06:35) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,18:20) How is that an admission that I don't know what I am talking about?  It is more than a statement that I do: it is an appreciation for the uncertainties involved in epistemology.  I do not adhere blindly to received mythology, but question it in order to improve the quality of the knowledge. The question rebounds on you: do you have anything to suggest you make conclusions based on a critical assessment? Stuart Quote I think it to be Does not make it so Exactly right. So there go most of the arguments you have made here. Stuart Not at all, because I don't say I think it to be, I say “it is” I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of GOD EXISTING. And as you also just said, you thinking it does not make it right. I am not absulutely certain that your god does not exist, but I think the probability of it being real is so small that you may as well conclude it does not exist. I base my view on both evidence, and the evidence that we would expect to have if the god you describe was real. You just assert that it is true. I assert that it probably isn't. That is 2-1 to me: my assertion plus all the evidence, against your assertion.  I could be wrong, but how would you know if you were wrong?  You have dangerously shut the door on the possibility that following this path you are taking is only invoking the extreme wrath of your god.  You don't actually know that it isn't. Stuart

Are you absolutely certain that the probability of God existing is as small as you say that it is?

Are you absolutely certain that you could be wrong?

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 30 2010,08:04)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 29 2010,07:46) Actually my journey to realizing God as being ACTUAL started from where you are now with the assumption that there are no gods. And of course you could not possibly know what experiences I have had or the Quality of them, if you studied Kant you would know that you cannot know my experience. I have studied all these philosophies before and I love mathematics as I already told you perhaps someone else would be impressed by you feigning knowledge but not I, sir. Idea of God Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, “we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…”,[48] but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the “ideal of the supreme good.” The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and “is necessary from the practical point of view”;[49] compare Voltaire: “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”[50] In the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote “One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose” (9:93, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590-91). Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor. Meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code. Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of Christianity that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967).[51] Kant  certainly believed in God the way a Muslim does I don't pretend to be able to replicate your experiences, but all I ever claimed was to be able to explain them in empirical and rational terms, without invoking gods, which I think can be done. So what about “what you have studied”?  You claimed to know about natural selection but you don't.  The proof is in the accuracy and understanding in what you type, not in what classes you claim to have enrolled in. Regarding Kant believing as you do, He said: “we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…”, And you said: I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of GOD EXISTING. Do YOU think like a muslim?? Stuart

Kant says:

The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of Moral Law.

Do you believe in Absolute Morality or not? If you do not all of your positions you take on morality hold no weight at all.

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 30 2010,12:38)

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 30 2010,07:56) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 29 2010,07:35) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 29 2010,07:16) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 29 2010,06:35) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,18:20) How is that an admission that I don't know what I am talking about?  It is more than a statement that I do: it is an appreciation for the uncertainties involved in epistemology.  I do not adhere blindly to received mythology, but question it in order to improve the quality of the knowledge. The question rebounds on you: do you have anything to suggest you make conclusions based on a critical assessment? Stuart Quote I think it to be Does not make it so Exactly right. So there go most of the arguments you have made here. Stuart Not at all, because I don't say I think it to be, I say “it is” I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of GOD EXISTING. And as you also just said, you thinking it does not make it right. I am not absulutely certain that your god does not exist, but I think the probability of it being real is so small that you may as well conclude it does not exist. I base my view on both evidence, and the evidence that we would expect to have if the god you describe was real. You just assert that it is true. I assert that it probably isn't. That is 2-1 to me: my assertion plus all the evidence, against your assertion.  I could be wrong, but how would you know if you were wrong?  You have dangerously shut the door on the possibility that following this path you are taking is only invoking the extreme wrath of your god.  You don't actually know that it isn't. Stuart Are you absolutely certain that the probability of God existing is as small as you say that it is? Are you absolutely certain that you could be wrong?

The nature of the determination of probability and the nature of absolute certainty together in the same statements constitute a category error, as far as I can see.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 30 2010,12:41)

Kant says: The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of Moral Law. Do you believe in Absolute Morality or not? If you do not all of your positions you take on morality hold no weight at all.

I already agree that there is a god idea, many actually, and the empirical evidence for that is all I need to be content.

The issue of whether there is a god to match the god idea is a different question, and Kant would be wrong to say he could prove the existence of a god by morals, because these things we call absolute morals are evidently arbitrary (although they do match ideas of selection pressures pretty well). So the problem is that any such 'proof' immediately becomes circular, because you assume the morals of the thing you wish to prove through the existence of those morals.

Would you care to demonstrate WHY the only valid position is a belief in absolute morals? Again, you are just asserting it.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 31 2010,01:44)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 30 2010,12:41) Kant says: The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of Moral Law. Do you believe in Absolute Morality or not? If you do not all of your positions you take on morality hold no weight at all. I already agree that there is a god idea, many actually, and the empirical evidence for that is all I need to be content. The issue of whether there is a god to match the god idea is a different question, and Kant would be wrong to say he could prove the existence of a god by morals, because these things we call absolute morals are evidently arbitrary (although they do match ideas of selection pressures pretty well).  So the problem is that any such 'proof' immediately becomes circular, because you assume the morals of the thing you wish to prove through the existence of those morals.   Would you care to demonstrate WHY the only valid position is a belief in absolute morals?  Again, you are just asserting it. Stuart

I'm just saying if you don't accept Morality as Absolute, your every Moral criticism has no valid basis.

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 31 2010,04:32)

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 31 2010,01:44) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 30 2010,12:41) Kant says: The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of Moral Law. Do you believe in Absolute Morality or not? If you do not all of your positions you take on morality hold no weight at all. I already agree that there is a god idea, many actually, and the empirical evidence for that is all I need to be content. The issue of whether there is a god to match the god idea is a different question, and Kant would be wrong to say he could prove the existence of a god by morals, because these things we call absolute morals are evidently arbitrary (although they do match ideas of selection pressures pretty well).  So the problem is that any such 'proof' immediately becomes circular, because you assume the morals of the thing you wish to prove through the existence of those morals.   Would you care to demonstrate WHY the only valid position is a belief in absolute morals?  Again, you are just asserting it. Stuart I'm just saying if you don't accept Morality as Absolute, your every Moral criticism has no valid basis.

Is it absolutely wrong to kill accept as a last resort in immediate physical self-defense, or prevention of physical injury of another?

How absolute do you consider that moral?

Is sex with a minor absolutely wrong?

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 31 2010,18:18)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 31 2010,04:32) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 31 2010,01:44) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 30 2010,12:41) Kant says: The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of Moral Law. Do you believe in Absolute Morality or not? If you do not all of your positions you take on morality hold no weight at all. I already agree that there is a god idea, many actually, and the empirical evidence for that is all I need to be content. The issue of whether there is a god to match the god idea is a different question, and Kant would be wrong to say he could prove the existence of a god by morals, because these things we call absolute morals are evidently arbitrary (although they do match ideas of selection pressures pretty well).  So the problem is that any such 'proof' immediately becomes circular, because you assume the morals of the thing you wish to prove through the existence of those morals.   Would you care to demonstrate WHY the only valid position is a belief in absolute morals?  Again, you are just asserting it. Stuart I'm just saying if you don't accept Morality as Absolute, your every Moral criticism has no valid basis. Is it absolutely wrong to kill accept as a last resort in immediate physical self-defense, or prevention of physical injury of another? How absolute do you consider that moral? Is sex with a minor absolutely wrong? Stuart

Quote

Is it absolutely wrong to kill accept as a last resort in immediate physical self-defense, or prevention of physical injury of another?

No, it is not wrong to kill someone who has killed and will kill again. It is also not wrong to kill someone who refuses to not comply to removing or refraining fom an injustice to another persons freedoms.

Quote

Is sex with a minor absolutely wrong?

What is a minor? Marriage that is condoned has no age condition. Sex is not permitted at all outside of the agreement of Mutual commitment

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 03 2010,17:16)

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 31 2010,18:18) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 31 2010,04:32) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 31 2010,01:44) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 30 2010,12:41) Kant says: The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of Moral Law. Do you believe in Absolute Morality or not? If you do not all of your positions you take on morality hold no weight at all. I already agree that there is a god idea, many actually, and the empirical evidence for that is all I need to be content. The issue of whether there is a god to match the god idea is a different question, and Kant would be wrong to say he could prove the existence of a god by morals, because these things we call absolute morals are evidently arbitrary (although they do match ideas of selection pressures pretty well).  So the problem is that any such 'proof' immediately becomes circular, because you assume the morals of the thing you wish to prove through the existence of those morals.   Would you care to demonstrate WHY the only valid position is a belief in absolute morals?  Again, you are just asserting it. Stuart I'm just saying if you don't accept Morality as Absolute, your every Moral criticism has no valid basis. Is it absolutely wrong to kill accept as a last resort in immediate physical self-defense, or prevention of physical injury of another? How absolute do you consider that moral? Is sex with a minor absolutely wrong? Stuart Quote Is it absolutely wrong to kill accept as a last resort in immediate physical self-defense, or prevention of physical injury of another? No, it is not wrong to kill someone who has killed and will kill again. It is also not wrong to kill someone who refuses to not comply to removing or refraining fom an injustice to another persons freedoms. Quote Is sex with a minor absolutely wrong? What is a minor? Marriage that is condoned has no age condition. Sex is not permitted at all outside of the agreement of Mutual commitment

So you do not believe in absolute morals then, because you have included a defense that is based on opinion. Every instance of killing can be justified under your definition. “He was standing in my way, removing my freedom of movement, so I was right to kill him”.

You condone pedophilia. Was that your view before you converted to mohammadism?

Looks like I'm the one who believes in absolute morals, and you're the one who fudges them.

Stuart

[Author]

Posts