Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke Growth of intelligence (and consequently morality) is greatly susceptible to social influences, learning behaviour and trauma.
A child is not born a murderer, but with poor socialisation, may indeed grow in to one.
What is it that these social influences etc work upon? Is there only one type of that thing?
You mean like the earth having "corners" or stoning gays?
Do you ever speak of "sunrise" ?
Do you ever speak of "sunset" ?
Do you here in the 21rst century ever talk about the sun "coming up" or "going down" ?
it could be argued that your expressions are scientifically imprecise.
Why, my dear fellow, the sun doesn't "rise ...[text shortened]... uctions there about New Testament believers carrying out a stoning of any kind. Thanks.
It speaks volumes that between "corners" or stoning gays, this is what you object to.
Originally posted by @vivify It speaks volumes that between "corners" or stoning gays, this is what you object to.
Just out of interest, would you have condoned the stoning of gays 3000 years ago if it would have been the only way of preserving the human race from going extinct? Or do you believe stoning gays is always wrong under all circumstances without exception and therefore it is a moral absolute that stoning gays is always wrong?
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke It is not 'sin nature', but nature still lacking in intelligence. As the child grows, intelligence grows too, and with it moral understanding.
Some of the most heinous crimes have been committed by some of the most intelligent people.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke Growth of intelligence (and consequently morality) is greatly susceptible to social influences, learning behaviour and trauma.
A child is not born a murderer, but with poor socialisation, may indeed grow in to one.
Edit: Quite a naïve question, if you don't mind me saying so.
A reminder for those who can't follow a thread.
*Obviously increased intelligence doesn't guarantee a good moral outlook.
Originally posted by @dj2becker Just out of interest, would you have condoned the stoning of gays 3000 years ago if it would have been the only way of preserving the human race from going extinct? Or do you believe stoning gays is always wrong under all circumstances without exception and therefore it is a moral absolute that stoning gays is always wrong?
At what point was the human race in danger of extinction? What evidence do you have? How does that not qualify as an excuse pulled right out one's rectum?
The bible doesn't object to gays on the basis of preserving the human race. The bible says it's an "abomination", which means revulsion or disgust at something. Someone say to men kissing and said "eww!", then decided they should be murdered. The bible objects to gays because some primitive men found it gross.
Originally posted by @vivify At what point was the human race in danger of extinction? What evidence do you have? How does that not qualify as an excuse pulled right out one's rectum?
The bible doesn't object to gays on the basis of preserving the human race. The bible says it's an "abomination", which means revulsion or disgust at something. Someone say to men kissing and said ...[text shortened]... d they should be murdered. The bible objects to gays because some primitive men found it gross.
It was a hypothetical question. I noticed your dodge, Do you believe stoning gays is always wrong under all circumstances without exception and therefore it is a moral absolute that stoning gays is always wrong?
Originally posted by @dj2becker It was a hypothetical question. I noticed your dodge, Do you believe stoning gays is always wrong under all circumstances without exception and therefore it is a moral absolute that stoning gays is always wrong?
Yes, stoning gays for being gay is always wrong, without exception.
21 Nov '17 17:30
basic logic of right and wrong
Back to Top