So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[JimL]

And Nazi Germany thought that exterminating the Jews and other genetically "undesirable" people was in the best interests of the community, and in a Godless universe, they were perfectly right to do so within their own moral framework, don't you agree?

Yes, the bigotted, racist, Hitler did, and he was wrong. He may have had the right to do so, the power to do so, but having the right and the power to do so, isn't what determines if it was in the best interests of the community.

[Tassman]

The concept of there being a "best" indicates an objective goal that everyone agrees on.

The Nazi's thought that what was "best" for their society was to kill all of the Jews. Does that mean that genocide is moral?

[Sparko]

So, you at least admit then that moral rules of behavior would exist, that they would, by man, be codified into law, even if they did not come from an objectively existing source? Correct?

Uh no. Your reading comprehension is as bad as your debating skill. Nonexistent.

[Sparko]

Yes, the bigotted, racist, Hitler did, and he was wrong. He may have had the right to do so, the power to do so, but having the right and the power to do so, isn't what determines if it was in the best interests of the community.

If it was just him, it wouldn't have happened. The entire government was with him and the people voted him into power. The German society believed Jews were the problem and needed to be eliminated. And you calling him bigoted and racist is just nonsense if morals are set by each society. You have no right to judge another society by your standards since there is no actual right or wrong.

[Sparko]

Then JimL's constant appeal to "what is best for society" is just meaningless nonsense. He can't have it both ways.



Why wasn't it moral Tassman? Because your modern personal moral view says it isn't? They would see you as immoral for supporting homosexuality. Which of you is actually right? If there is no objective morality then neither of you is correct. You keep claiming morals are not objective, then turning around and arguing as if they were. Make up your mind and be consistent.

[Tassman]

Then JimL's constant appeal to "what is best for society" is just meaningless nonsense.

Not at all. He means (as do I) at a given point of time in history.

Why wasn't it moral Tassman? Because your modern personal moral view says it isn't?

No, because my reflects the current values of the society to which I belong.

They would see you as immoral for supporting homosexuality.

Indeed, they would, but social values have changed since then to the extent that equal rights for homosexuals are now accepted by the majority in the West. Just as equal rights for blacks were accepted a generation ago.

Which of you is actually right?

If there is no objective morality then neither of you is correct. You keep claiming morals are not objective, then turning around and arguing as if they were. Make up your mind and be consistent.

The reverse is true. It is you

[Sparko]

Not at all. He means (as do I) at a given point of time in history.

No what you mean is what a society PREFERS at any point in time. If there is no objective good or bad, then there can be no "best" - just preferences.

No, because my reflects the current values of the society to which I belong.

Except you already have shown that your personal view can easily differ from your society's view.

[Tassman]

No what you mean is what a society PREFERS at any point in time. If there is no objective good or bad, then there can be no "best" - just preferences.

Except you already have shown that your personal view can easily differ from your society's view.

It can, just as your

[Sparko]

Then you have no leg to stand on to complain about any other culture's morality.

It can, just as your

Well, I can because I believe morality is objective and I align myself with God, the source of that morality, and he as Jesus said to forgive. And because you have no clue about what the OT Law was even about or what it says, or who it was given to. Or even what the difference is between something being immoral and the punishment for it. Homosexuality is still immoral, we just don't stone them any more. Same moral.

[MaxVel]

then you have no leg to stand on to complain about any other culture's morality.




Well, i can because i believe morality is objective and i align myself with god, the source of that morality, and he as jesus said to forgive. And because you have no clue about what the ot law was even about or what it says, or who it was given to. Or even what the difference is between something being immoral and the punishment for it. Homosexuality is still immoral, we just don't stone them any more. Same moral.

fify

[Tassman]

Then you have no leg to stand on to complain about any other culture's morality.

We can if their "objective morality" impinges on our culture as per say, 9/11.

Well, I can because I believe morality is objective and I align myself with God, the source of that morality, and he as Jesus said to forgive.

Homosexuality is still immoral, we just don't stone them any more. Same moral.

[tabibito]

We can if their "objective morality" impinges on our culture as per say, 9/11.

A strong argument for closed borders - do you really want to be affirming this?

The OT society saw the penalties established by the law as maxima. In the ordinary course, then as now, maximum penalty was reserved for worst cases.
God's current "clear injunction" as you put it has nothing to do with OT law. Under the NT law, the maximum penalty for any offence is excommunication, or in secular terms, exile - no warrant for the death penalty, however enacted, is granted by the New Testament. War is arguably a different matter, but I'm not satisfied that a conclusive finding, whether pro or con, can be derived.
The Muslim's god, as declared by their own sacred texts, has very little in common with the Christian and Jewish god. There are many who see a close correlation between the Muslim god and Suen/Nanna.
Such penalties as stoning becoming unacceptable in our societies arises from Christian precepts, atheist claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Christians still argue against enacting the death penalty.

[Sparko]

We can if their "objective morality" impinges on our

Then I don't want to hear you complain about slavery in the bible or any other actions taken by other societies that you don't like.


God didn't tell us to stone anyone. In fact, Jesus said not to (re: woman who was going to be stoned) - that was a punishment given in the OT to a specific group at a specific time. It was just a civil law under the old covenant. Jesus gave us a new covenant. The moral law that homosexual behavior is a sin, still stands. Also I have no control over how my government punishes or doesn't punish homosexuals and as a citizen I have no right to impose any punishment myself, regardless of what I think it should or should not be.

[tabibito]

It can't have been a civil law - there was no such thing in Israel before the second temple period ... if it existed even then.

[Sparko]

It can't have been a civil law - there was no such thing in Israel before the second temple period ... if it existed even then.

well I meant a law used to govern the people. That's what civil law is. Violations were heard by the leaders and adjudicated, and if someone was found guilty, the punishment was meted out. Pretty much the way any justice system works today.