If god's morals have improved over the millennia, that is a clear indication that they weren't perfect, clear enough that even believers should dismiss the idea of moral absolutism.

(December 2, 2014 at 2:05 pm)abaris Wrote: But it's supposed to be a god handing out these laws. If he handed out different laws, by your own definition of faith, they would have fallen to their knees and kissed his ass.

As I said, I'm perfectly aware of the times and the cultures. But it's no mitigating factor for a supposed higher, timeless and omniscient being to hand out disgusting procedures. And the doubling down factor of the disgusting is the fact that christian leaders still cry at the top of their lungs for women to know their place. So, good job, little if anything learned in 3000 years.

It's your opinion that said procedures are disgusting. You act as if your position is the objectively provable correct one. It isn't.

And taking commandments blindly is the definition of amoral.

It's really sad to see people try to defend brutal and blatantly unfair practices just so they can keep thinking a book is magic.

Morality is about trying to maximise the health and wellbeing of individuals and society, that's the definition I use.

What's your definition?

(December 2, 2014 at 2:50 pm)alpha male Wrote: It's your opinion that said procedures are disgusting. You act as if your position is the objectively provable correct one. It isn't.

Having a hard time wiggling out from under god's supposed perfection?

Oh yeah, I should mention again that satan wrote the bible. And the Koran. So maybe don't take ithem too seriously.

(December 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm)abaris Wrote: Having a hard time wiggling out from under god's supposed perfection?

Not at all. You seem to be having trouble showing that your morality is anything more than your opinion though.

Objectively provable one?
What does that even mean?

Define morality first before trying to discuss it.

(December 2, 2014 at 3:01 pm)alpha male Wrote: Not at all. You seem to be having trouble showing that your morality is anything more than your opinion though.

No, you don't get to derail this one into another my moral prick is bigger than yours discussion.

I was asking you a specific question. Which is, why did god, omniscient, timeless and wise, leave specific instructions of how to perform rape instead of doing the decent thing?

You only have to answer of course, if you think, that rape isn't the decent thing to do.

(December 2, 2014 at 3:02 pm)robvalue Wrote: Define morality first before trying to discuss it.

No, don't let him get off with another morality Red Hering at all.

(December 2, 2014 at 2:50 pm)alpha male Wrote: It's your opinion that said procedures are disgusting. You act as if your position is the objectively provable correct one. It isn't.

Are you suggesting that you would accept unsolicited dicks in your ass without consent if someone told you it was willed by God?