Why Sexual Morality May be Far More Important than You Ever Thought
(www.kirkdurston.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (42)
sorted by:
Then you have no grounds to hold Pedophiles in contempt.
A very slippery slope you are on...
Where else does morality come from but within? We've been talking about this concept for years. If the two of us both decide we want to sleep with someone else together what is the harm? We have learned a lot about each other just talking about it.
I get what you're saying though because I've had the same thought. If everyone sets there own morals then some people would say children are ok to have sex with.
At the same time most people on "our" side seem to think being gay is a sin and I just disagree with that. Adults minding their own business and being weird just doesn't seem anywhere close to pedophile to me.
I hear what you're saying. But I was responding more to the principle that "morals come from within."
Once this conclusion has been arrived at, then there are no objective moral grounds to judge Pedophilia as morally wrong, because, subjectively, the "Pedophile makes his own morals."
Ultimately, if there are objective moral laws which society's everywhere follow, then there is an Objective Moral Law Giver (God). There appears to be objective moral laws (even a serial killer would feel "wronged" if his mother were to be brutally murdered). This sense of morality appears to transcend individuality and societal constructs. Therefore, there are objective moral laws - which leads us to a transcendent moral law Giver - God.
Mans heart is deceitfully wicked, who can know it? There is none righteous, no not one.
While we are moral creatures, Morality comes from a transcendent God. Otherwise we have no objective grounds to say another individual's choice of morals are "wrong" - even if their choice of morality says it's okay to have sex with kids.
That little Atheist drivle you posted is just that, drivle. Doesn't even understand the nature of OS.
OS doesn't say Man cannot do Good. OS says Man has disobeyed God.
Using your own (imperfect) standard of Morality will lead you to Moral Relativism. An unsustainable, self referential ideology.
What if those two adults decide to have sex with children?
That sounds like the kind of argument anti-gun people use.
“But, but, but, what if they decide to shoot up a school?!!!!”
The question was asked in order to show the unsustainable, self referential nature of moral relativism. Even the most liberal moral relativist shows he is not consistent in his moral relativism when he says someone "ought" not to do X, Y and Z. It's just a matter of finding the scenario that brings him out of his moral relativism.
No one is a true Moral Relativist.
An Absolute Moralist, however, would agree that it is always wrong for someone to shoot up a school. If shooting up a school full of innocent children is wrong for everyone everywhere and for all times, then Moral Relativism is false.
One simple question disables the Moral Relativist and their foolish ideology:
Is Moral Relativism absolutely true for everyone everywhere?
You sound triggered.
This should be self evident at this point in the awakening.