Posted on 03/19/2003 12:48:02 AM PST by RJCogburn
God's inability to "perform" logical impossibilities is not a defect in God, but rather a perfection.
And utterly immaterial as to whether you know God better than I do.
Really.
Great, then it's perfectly logical that God ordering his followers to kill children is an example of moral relativism.
Society is a collection of individuals which should be ordered toward the common good (defense, commerce, worship, etc.) Society is inevitable and spontaneous wherever two or more people are gathered together. Man never exists outside of society for his entire life and normally exists within society. Men may exist in good or bad societies, but living extra-societally is pretty much impossible.
Is society binding on everyone? If so, why?
This is a nonsensical question. Can you rephrase it?
By what authority does society impose its idea of "rights" on individuals?
The object of law is the common good or the common welfare (as in the Constitution). The welfare of the society is of more importance than the welfare of one individual inasmuch as the whole is greater than its parts. This stands to reason since sometimes individual lives must be sacrificed for the greater good, as in war.
I'm glad that you agree that the alleged "revelation" to commit genocide should have been rejected as the voice of psychosis, since authorization for it was obviously was not to be found in any holy writings at the time.
The whole may be numerically "greater" than the parts, but that in itself gives it no moral precedence over the individual.
How Marcuseian.
This is a nonsensical question. Can you rephrase it?
What authority does society have to force an individual to conform to its wishes? If three men wish to rob one man, do their greater numbers make their actions moral? I think not...
Why ever not? There are many precedents on both the individual and the national levels of obvious moral atrocities being justified as "God's Will".
One might entertain the possibility that a nation that committed an atrocious act that was against its own desires and interest had been motivated by the sincere belief that God had commanded it. Taking over a neighboring tribe's land clearly does not meet that condition.
It doesn't matter which. Unless there is some sort of right to do harm to oneself, then there is no right to put any consideration ahead of one's own physical safety.
I haven't seen anyone talk about that, but lets look at it.
The first amendment, are you against it?
You talked about proyestizing homosexuality, now you talk about rape.
So what kind of talk does the first amendment allow about homosexuality? (in your mind)
Recruit? Explain precisely. You mean personally proposition underage males?
Explain the indirectly part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.