quote:
In the discussion on the thread "What Would You Do If You Were God?" starting at Message 90 Dr. Adequate issued a direct challenge to Mike the Wiz to unequivocally condemn rape. In fact he challenged any and all creationists/anti-evolutionists to condemn rape under all circumstances.
So far none have responded.
I think this dilemma should be a thread in and of itself rather than buried within another, therefore the PNT.
I realize this may be seen as baiting to some degree, however, the motto is understanding through discussion. I want to know the reasoning behind not condemning acts considered immoral by any civilized person today; namely rape, slavery, genocide, or physical abuse and degradation of women and children; and why such acts are not firmly and loudly denounced by fundamentalists.
I am confused. The literalists claim that morality is absolute yet they have refused to condemn rape as at least 8 atheists have done so far in the thread I mentioned.
So which side is believes in absolute morality and which believes in relative morality? It appears to me that if something is condoned in the OT, then it is OK under at least some circumstances to fundamentalists while "evolutionists" seem to condemn such behavior under all conditions.
What I expect to is to see either the upstanding rejection of relative morality offered in the OT or more likely the amazing twists of apologetics in defending what any person with the slightest hint of morality would unhesitatingly denounce as evil.
Ball in your court, fundamentalists. Please surprise me.
Faith and belief?
I don't believe your questions or Dr. Adequate's in the other thread are serious. Perhaps that's why he had such a poor response. Your question and thread title aren't baiting, but trolling.
™ Version 4.2
