[Bosco55David]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

weak

Are you disputing those facts?

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I think he did. Is there a reason he shouldn't have?

I figured the fact that we've obliterated that argument as a logical fallacy might dissuade some people from going there.

Is that next? How are we right to tell a guy he can't have 4 wives?

How are we to tell anyone that something is wrong? What is your standard? How do you determine where to draw the line?

You tell me.

[Bosco55David]

Originally Posted by iamjacobm

When both parties can agree to it is where I draw the line. Can animals or dead people agree to a union in front of the law?

And there is where there logic falls apart. It all comes down to consent.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Are you disputing those facts?



I figured the fact that we've obliterated that argument as a logical fallacy might dissuade some people from going there.

which fallacy?

You tell me.

I have objective standards. Do you?

[Bosco55David]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I have objective standards. Do you?

And they are?

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

And they are?

God has given them to us. Morality comes from God--including our values of do not murder, do not steal, etc.

What are your's? If you say anything else, then you believe in a morals system that is subject to change and thus have no absolute form of morality.

[Bosco55David]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

God has given them to us. Morality comes from God--including our values of do not murder, do not steal, etc.

Ok, you believe in a theological moral system. That is fine for your personal life, but we are a secular nation so theological morals are irrelevant in the law making process.

Surely, you agree with that.

What are your's? If you say anything else, then you believe in a morals system that is subject to change and thus have no absolute form of morality.

I'm more about ethics than morals.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Ok, you believe in a theological moral system. That is fine for your personal life, but we are a secular nation so theological morals are irrelevant in the law making process.

Surely, you agree with that.

How so? God's morals are the backbone of our morality. Without God there is no absolute morality.

9 of the original 13 states had official state religions. You can't tell me the founding fathers thought religion had no part in law. Do I think we should just declare the 10 commandments as law? No. But we shouldn't do our best to cleanse any and all religious expression from society.

I'm more about ethics than morals.

....convenient since you have no absolute morals....

[Bosco55David]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Without God there is no absolute morality.

That's because morals are not absolute. People decide their own moral code. Some, like you, follow religious doctrine. Others do not.

9 of the original 13 states had official state religions. You can't tell me the founding fathers thought religion had no part in law.

False. They made sure that religion was not to be used in law with the very first amendment to our constitution, an amendment which was later applied to the individual states as well.

No. But we shouldn't do our best to cleanse any and all religious expression from society.

The 1st Amendment to the U.S Constitution grants you the right to religious expression. That does not apply to the government or legislative process.

....convenient since you have no absolute morals....

Ethics provide me all the morals I need in my life.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

That's because morals are not absolute. People decide their own moral code. Some, like you, follow religious doctrine. Others do not.

I guarantee that I could name something that you would consider to always be wrong. That sounds like an "absolute" to me.

False. They made sure that religion was not to be used in law with the very first amendment to our constitution, an amendment which was later applied to the individual states as well.

Exactly...it was a later ammendment which later incorrectly applied a precedent to all the states.

The 1st Amendment to the U.S Constitution grants you the right to religious expression. That does not apply to the government or legislative process.

It grants individual expression. I've never suggested we do more.

Ethics provide me all the morals I need in my life.

What is the difference between ethics and morals, in your mind?

[Bosco55David]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I guarantee that I could name something that you would consider to always be wrong. That sounds like an "absolute" to me.

Not what I was saying. I said moral codes are not absolute from one person to another. Each person ultimately decides their own morals.

Exactly...it was a later ammendment which later incorrectly applied a precedent to all the states.

There was nothing incorrect about it. The 14th amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine that applied all of the Bill of Rights to the individual states was done for a reason.

It grants individual expression. I've never suggested we do more.

You're suggesting we legislate off of a religious moral code.

What is the difference between ethics and morals, in your mind?

This piece explains it pretty well.

What is the Difference Between Ethics and Morals?