(June 23, 2015 at 5:20 pm)pocaracas Wrote:(June 23, 2015 at 4:27 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Ok, Randy... let's take a poll: how many in this thread think I'm making my case and how many think Randy is making his? A show of hands, please.
No one's making any case.
You're arguing that the book contains rules, supposedly handed down by the god character, which are, as seen from today's western POV, morally bankrupt - it is thus a sign that the morality followed by humans is changing with time.
Randy's arguing that his god always hands down morally solid rules well adjusted for those old times, but people, nowadays, misunderstand them.... the rules remain morally sound, the applicability just needs some tweaking.
You're both saying the same thing, while failing to define what the heck it means for something to BE Moral.... so each claims whatever s/he wants for that word.
No, poca; what you quoted was in response to Randy saying that his god doesn't condone rape, and that by saying he does, I'm lying. It's a side conversation brought on by the objective/subjective morality debate. As far as how that part of the debate is going, I agree with you.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.
