Why is there a reticence to admit that in some (I won’t even say most) cases where people have sex without being married it causes no harm to society?Freddy:
He just won’t give up his quest that everyone be allowed to do whatever they want…
Here’s 2,411 reasons. The images of these murdered people are too graphic to upload. Their remains were found in abortionist’s garage.
Married people have abortions too.Freddy:
Here’s 2,411 reasons. The images of these murdered people are too graphic to upload. Their remains were found in abortionist’s garage.
And that makes fornicating OK in your moral system?
When I say it’s wrong that’s what I believe: I’ve studied the case for a Creator and researched various religions. I’m not here saying I blindly believe what I believe and thus it must be true. If you want me to give my reasons for why I believe what I believe then that’s something that can be discussed in private on the forum such as in PM or on a different topic on the board having to do with the case against/for Theism.
I know this. Hence what I said previously regarding if there is no God that morals are like the answer to what the best ice cream is = Down to human opinion. There is no ultimate wrong or right. I’d be a nihilist if I became an Atheist again.
Reminds me of a joke
Authentic and authority do not mean the same thing. Authentic means natural, genuine. Homosexual acts are not authentic human acts. One must acknowledge that as fallen human beings, we have unnatural urges – everyone of us.
The myopic view of an adolescent is never the basis for a sound moral system.
Show me.
I know a woman who has five children without ever having been married or in any form of civil partnership.
I have a plan.What do you think will be next? Incest?
If I bottle and sell a beer to a distributor who sells it to a bar who serves it to a man who drives home drunk and hits a pedestrian, there is a downstream negative affect to society of my action, but I don’t think a reasonable person would conclude my action was immoral.Dan123:
Show me.
Please tie back your beer analogy and insert the fornicator in the causal chain that leads to abortion. Is the fornicator the bottler, the distributor or the bar keep? It seems they are the bar keep.
The material welfare of the children is important but not as important as their spiritual welfare. Single parented children whether from promiscuous or divorced mothers do not do well.
If there is no argument, you start insults. The principle of “the right of your fist ends where my nose begins” is the soundest foundation for a moral / ethical system. Even Jesus endorsed it in the golden rule.
Where’s the insult? Apparently, you also missed the arguments. Take the to read the thread before lurching into victim mode.
Where would a married couple who aborts an unintended pregnancy be in the analogy? Same place right? That suggests being unmarried isn’t specifically a component in the causal chain.
I think that has a;ways been the principal appeal of religion - explaining reality in a way that is easier for people to accept. It’s clear that such beliefs have an evolutionary advantage - people who believe in God are more easily able to deal with the inevitable disappointments and tragedies of life. But it is not an argument for the existence go God. It’s a reason to believe. It’s extension, into areas of debate like polygamy shows that the ‘reason to believe’ is not a sound foundation since some religions accept it and some do not. You can’t argue from ‘I feel God exists’ to ‘polygamy is wrong’ unless you make a series of other ‘faith leaps’.
Is the “myopic view of an adolescent” now a term of endearment? Somehow I missed that.