- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Whether or not he's fighting against it doesn't make it right. It's not irrelevant, because him living as a homosexual is still sin whether or not he accepts that or not.
In your opinion... which as I said is irrelevant because your opinion is not truth. Sorry. Morality is relative.
We may have, but morality is not relative. Your position that it is is not only self defeating and contradicting but also based on nothing more than personal opinion and not a higher authority. If morality is relative then people set their own morals and there isn't a higher power that delegate morals nor a judge that sets standards for right or wrong (God). The statement that all morality is relative is a relative statement in and of itself and also self contradictory because stating such is an absolute statement. You don't accept the Biblical truth that God has given us, that's your belief. But that does not make yours correct and the position that all morals are relative is still a fallacy and self defeating. To say my position is wrong you must either prove that there is no God or judge or that if there is one that they have set forth no moral standards or sin, that they do not judge humans and that they have delegated moral authority over to each individual person with that person essentially being the judge of all right and wrong. Relative morality cannot exist within the context of the world having a higher power that has set standards for sin, holy living or a final judgement of individuals by said higher power on issues where the higher power has authority. I base the fact that morality is based on the absolute code for morals and ethics given in the Bible due to fulfilled Biblical prophecy, seeing the tangible works of God through the Holy Spirit in my life (and the life of others) and the fact that it has not been properly refuted. Mine is based on a higher authority, not my own. Your position that all morality is relative places you as the moral authority over others and makes a self contradicting statement that all morals are relative without offering any proof. As I said, for such to be true then there must not be a higher power or if there is one they simply don't care about morals or judge sin or they have delegated moral authority over to people (for which proof of such action should be shown). Moral relativity cannot exist in the presense of a higher power that has set standards for morals and sin, because such higher power has authority over humanity and what humanity may believe is absolutely wrong in contrast to what has authority. It's similar to someone believing that it's acceptable to murder when the authority (being the law) saying otherwise, what they believe is irrelevant and the higher power (police and justice system) have the say in that matter. Similarly, a person can believe that it's fine to have homosexual sex, but that's irrelevant when the higher power who has the final say says it's wrong and that person's beliefs do not trump what is morally correct which is correct because the higher authority (God) delegates that.
Nothing here that refutes anything I said. In fact, you get so much wrong that it's really not possible to count that high. Firstly, moral relativity does not depend on there being no God, nor does it depend on God having set no moral standards. There is a God (to me) and He has set moral standards. Just not the moral standards that you believe he's set. So, there are now two possibilities. Either morals are relative, or those that I'VE seen God set are absolute. I'm fine with either. How about you?