uk.local.hampshire

Not Today wrote:
>
> "mark" wrote in message
> news:7M2dndu2y6kvJSnanZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@...
>> X-No-Archive: yes
>>
>> "Not Today" wrote in message
>> news:@...
>>>
>>> "mark" wrote in message
>>> news:SPKdnSjcsPJ0_S7aRVnyiwA@...
>>
>>
>>>> So, when you say the moral purpose of the TEN commandments how do you
>>>> maintain such assertion for their entirety...?
>>
>>> Very easily! Take some advice and before you spout off about morality
>>> and
>>> morals make sure you know what the words mean. If you check with the
>>> Oxford English Dictionary, or if you do not have one check online, you
>>> will find that "morality" is a code of conduct held to be
>>> authoritative in
>>> matters of right and wrong, whether by society, religion, philosophy or
>>> individual conscience.
>>
>> Yes. The definitions are, of course, inclusive... not exclusive.
>> Therefore morality in the apparent sense of your post {here it is..]
>>
>> "Christians do not claim to have invented the Ten Commandments do
>> they? And
>> does their religious origin degrade their moral purpose?"
>>
>> ..........infers that 'christians' ("their" and "their" ) have a
>> 'moral purpose' .
>>
>> Of course, your previous assertions that the ten commandments are a
>> tenet (my word) of morality is incorrect.
>> As I have shown you, almost half have nothing to do with morality
>> whatsoever. Attempts to draw wider, generic description of the term
>> *morals* fails in all respects.
>> Let us be clear, the first four of the posted 'ten commandments'
>> [....of course, there were more but let's not confuse you at this
>> point] are self referencing religious statements that are not, and
>> could not be seen as moral assertions by any reasonable, clear
>> thinking and intelligent person.
>>
>>> "Morality" therefore is not absolute,
>>
>> Of course morality is not absolute...... that is the ultimate
>> antipathy to fundamental evangelicals.
>>
>>
>>> your idea of
>>> morality can be totally different to mine as Christian morality is from
>>> Islamic morality.
>>
>> Phwewh.
>> We both understand, at least, that morality is not an absolute notion.
>>
>>> Hence, all Ten Commandments are included in the
>>> Christian morality code.
>>
>> Well of course they are.
>> But moral...... they are not.
>> [by the way, where can I find further reference to this.."Christian
>> morality code"....?]
>>
>>> You may not subscribe to them, that does not make
>>> them less moral from a Christian perspective.
>>
>>
>> Oh please.
>> Whether *we* subscribe to them or not has no relevance to the
>> understanding of the tenet.
>> You are confused entirely by the notion of morality and the notion of
>> christian assertion of morality.
>> Self referential tenets are not moralistic just because the OED
>> describes morality in a generic, all encompassing criteria and into
>> which you unrealistically attempt to apply such definition, they are
>> not moralistic, simply, because they do not address moral issues.
>> Simple really.
>>
>
> Complete goobledegook. You are all over the place. Morality means what
> the moraliser says it means. Even you agree that morality is not
> absolute. Atheists may have a different set of morals than "believers"
> but they both have a set of "morals", just different ones. You really
> should open your mind, your set of morals are not the definitive ones,
> they are just yours. Evidently tolerance is not one of them.
>
> And if you think the OED's definition is wrong then write to them and
> put them right. They will be most grateful.
>
> .
>
why would atheists (whatever they are..sounds like another religion to
me - or someone else to blame) have a different moral code.

The moral code is based on common sense not religion