uk.local.hampshire

"KJ" wrote in message
news:ZpWdnbnjiIgOXynanZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@...
> 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

common sense is still subjective you complete and utter retard. Why don't
you quite while you're way, way behind.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from