Originally posted by LemonJello
your example is a bad one because it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. the discussion at hand deals with morality, and more specifically, whether moral code is something that must be handed down to us and scribed in stone or whet ...[text shortened]... let from god said that murdering is altogether hunky-dory?
I think you are not giving animals doing right and wrong enough
thought. You seem to really want to bypass the fact that the deed
is the same, yet with us it is wrong with them it is what?
The answer to that question holds a lot of truth that is foundational
in my opinion. What if some space ship started flying over this place
and started watching all life as we do when we study animals in their
natural habitat, they would see animals killing one another, they would
see us killing one another. They would see animals taking things from
one another and us doing the same. If they don’t understand our
means of communication but only see how we act, what is so different
from us and the animals? If they were evolutionist and was looking at
us as simply something that crawled out of the swamp, why wouldn’t
our killing one another not simply be seen as us acting out the way we
simply do according to our nature, as the animals do.
They would see stealing, killing, and if they did understand us when
we communicate with one another; they see us breaking our word,
and again why wouldn’t that simply be us acting out according to our
nature as animals do when they act.
By all means we can address the other points I brought up too, but
this is not something I think should be simply swept under a rug and
forgotten.
Kelly