- Anything Else -

Lack of bible does not mean no morals

In Reply to: Only if moral relativism is valid. posted by Stuart Gort on April 05, 1999 at 16:42:20:

For me, Stuart I draw the line at consent. If two (or three or thirteen or fourteen) people want to have sexual relations together, and if one of them is not using a power differential to force, convince, or coerce the other person into it, then sexual relations are fine by me. Is that clear enough?

As for homosexuality being cool and as for meat eating being popular, I feel you are being petty in this argument. You know my motivations lie elsewhere, Stuart. I lost any desire to appear cool many years ago. My arguments concerning homosexuality are based on my belief that it is not harmful to anyone, that it is normal, and that it is natural. My arguments against meat eating are based on my belief that it is hurting others (human and non-human), that in the way it is done today it is not normal, and that to the extent to which it is done it is not natural. (You know my arguments on this, so please forgive the convoluted sentence.)

Your accusations that my morals are without foundation is offensive. My morals are based in something much more fundamental to my being than some book which claims divine inspiration, but which was compiled and (vigorously) edited by a group of self-serving, power-mad hypocrites.
I can take a stand and think and feel without a bible to guide me, Stuart. I would dare to say you believe that I am not someone given to hurting others and yet I reject the bible as a source of morality. How can this be? Are all non-christians immoral? Amoral? How about before judaism and christianity? Did people not know how to treat each other any more so than today?

Follow Ups:

None.