(June 20, 2015 at 5:51 pm)abaris Wrote:(June 20, 2015 at 5:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Does that make more sense?
No, not really. And I don't mean that in an offensive way. The old ones weren't insane or incapable of seeing what they were doing. They only had different standards to live by. That's why I always keep arguing that all the books of the bible are mirrors of their time and of the societies where they were compiled.
I don't judge these people for seeing the described things as good and just. I also don't judge people who still want to introduce an at least 2000 years old behavioral codex into their personal lives. What I have a real problem with, are those people, who want to do that for the whole of society.
Albis, that was just an example to show the difference between objective morality and personal culpability. Did you understand the differences? Would you agree there? If not, which part did you not agree with?
You are correct that judging people is not right. But we can still judge the morality of an objective act.
There are places in the world that consider slavery perfectly fine, normal, and moral.
There are places in the world that consider it perfectly fine, normal, and moral to burn your daughter alive if she gets raped.
But those acts are still objectively immoral, no matter what that society thinks. Don't you want those societies to stop doing these things? If so, then you too are what you describe in your very lest sentence.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
