Hitler

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
SInce you are insistent that truth is not universal, would you care to mention anything that you believe to be 'true' that is not 'universally true'.

My belief that homosexuality is not immoral ~ something that I hold to be true ~ is not held to be a universal truth by others, indeed I would imagine that a majority of people in the world would perceive my claim to be untrue. It would be meaningless to them for me to go on and on and on about how my stance on the morality of homosexuality is a "universal truth".

For me to prattle on pretentiously about how my views on homosexuality constitute a "universal truth" would not have any impact on the credibility of my views to others or on how my views govern my interactions with homosexuals or with people who think homosexuality is immoral.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I only used the word 'universal truth' to differentiate it from 'relative truth', which some people may believe in.

I'll let other people decide for themselves if this is an honest or accurate account of how and why you have been using the word.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I politely suggest you spend some time with the Old testament. Then come back and say 'it's against God's nature to do something bad' while keeping a straight face.

God is accountable to the moral standard he puts upon his creation, or else is reduced to the cliche. 'do as I say, not as i do.'

Good God man! Did you ever screw that up. 🙄

Your rationale stems from an atheistic point of view. If you're wrong about the existence of a creator, then it will be you that stands in judgement according to the moral code placed on you by your maker. Not the other way around.

It is as illogical as it gets to presume that the creature can dictate to the creator who's accountable for what when it comes to adhering to a moral code.

Originally posted by FMF
My belief that homosexuality is not immoral ~ something that I hold to be true ~ is not held to be a universal truth by others, indeed I would imagine that a majority of people in the world would perceive my claim to be untrue. It would be meaningless to them for me to go on and on and on about how my stance on the morality of homosexuality is a "universal truth ...[text shortened]... views govern my interactions with homosexuals or with people who think homosexuality is immoral.

Something that is really true is true regardless of whether some people disagree with it. That is what a universal truth is. The fact that some people don't accept it doesn't mean it's not true. You believe that rape is wrong regardless of what other people think.

On what basis do you accept homosexuality to be perfectly moral behavior? Is it natural?

Originally posted by FMF
I'll let other people decide for themselves if this is an honest or accurate account of how and why you have been using the word.

Indeed, you claim that I have deliberately ignored your posts, yet you can't tell me which one. You also seem to think you are a mind reader with your particular use of the word 'deliberate'.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Something that is really true is true regardless of whether some people disagree with it. That is what a universal truth is. The fact that some people don't accept it doesn't mean it's not true.

On what basis do you accept homosexuality to be perfectly moral behavior? Is it natural?

FMF, and most others, is incapable of acknowledging a moral law giver with an authority higher than his own. The idea of an objective moral standard doesn't exists in the mind of those that believe only in themselves and a man centered philosophy of life. They make their own rules, and if you suggest that there exists a moral code above and beyond their own, then you and anyone else that believes otherwise is labeled misanthropic.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
On what basis do you accept homosexuality to be perfectly moral behavior? Is it natural?

I have already told you what I think is the basis of morally unsound behaviour and therefore in what circumstances I think homosexuals and heterosexuals are engaging in morally unsound behaviour. But you simply ignored it.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Something that is really true is true regardless of whether some people disagree with it. That is what a universal truth is. The fact that some people don't accept it doesn't mean it's not true. You believe that rape is wrong regardless of what other people think.

I already know that you consider your own opinions about moral issues to be "universally true". I'm not sure why you are telling me again. I have acknowledged what your perspective is time and time again.

Originally posted by josephw
FMF, and most others, is incapable of acknowledging a moral law giver with an authority higher than his own. The idea of an objective moral standard doesn't exists in the mind of those that believe only in themselves and a man centered philosophy of life. They make their own rules, and if you suggest that there exists a moral code above and beyond their own, then you and anyone else that believes otherwise is labeled misanthropic.

And somehow he still convinces himself that his moral standards are not made up of his own personal preferences.

Originally posted by josephw
FMF, and most others, is incapable of acknowledging a moral law giver with an authority higher than his own.

The way I see it, no one is capable of deciding to believe in supernatural phenomena and beings that they do not find believable. I've no reason to doubt that I would be capable of acknowledging a moral law giver with an authority higher than my own if I believed there was one that had given us moral laws.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
And somehow he still convinces himself that his moral standards are not made up of his own personal preferences.

You have ignored repeated attempts to discuss how your concept of "personal preferences" applies to the way you interpret and apply what you deem to be "universal truths" a.k.a. your personal opinions about what "the truth" is. I have lost count of how many times you blanked out my attempts to engage you in discussion about it.

Originally posted by josephw
FMF, and most others, is incapable of acknowledging a moral law giver with an authority higher than his own. The idea of an objective moral standard doesn't exists in the mind of those that believe only in themselves and a man centered philosophy of life. They make their own rules, and if you suggest that there exists a moral code above and beyond their own, then you and anyone else that believes otherwise is labeled misanthropic.

Would you describe the "objective moral standard" as coinciding with the Christian beliefs you just so happen to have? What is your view about any "objective moral standard" that is different from the one you perceive and subscribe to?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
And somehow he still convinces himself that his moral standards are not made up of his own personal preferences.

Do you not prefer your perception and moral estimation of homosexuals to mine?

Originally posted by FMF
You have ignored repeated attempts to discuss how your concept of "personal preferences" applies to the way you interpret and apply what you deem to be "universal truths" a.k.a. your personal opinions about what "the truth" is. I have lost count of how many times you blanked out my attempts to engage you in discussion about it.

How does this apply to your claims that your moral standards are not made up of your own personal preferences. Or do you now admit they are and you want to imply that mine also are?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
How does this apply to your claims that your moral standards are not made up of your own personal preferences. Or do you now admit they are and you want to imply that mine also are?

I tried to discuss this with you post after post, page after page, earlier on this thread. You either didn't read numerous posts of mine or you deliberately ignored them.