>>>The moral values (which you specifed in your previous post) are absolute, and also common to most folks, as I indicated.<<<
That is a myth perpetuated by Moral Relativists, like yourself. Answer this: prior to the Christians and early Jews, which nations practiced the Law of the Lord (e.e., "...all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them..." - Matthew 7:12)? Just curious.
That is a myth perpetuated by Moral Relativists, like yourself.
Proposing that moral values are absolute is an indication that the speaker is a moral relativist?
You're obviously hopelessly confused.
[PhilipFreneau] That is a myth perpetuated by Moral Relativists, like yourself. Answer this: prior to the Christians and early Jews, which nations practiced the Law of the Lord (e.e., "...all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them..." - Matthew 7:12)? Just curious.
Ae you talking about 'nations practising law' or (as I was) 'people practising morality'?
The moral principle of Matthew 7:12 is of great antiquity, and probably close to a human universal. It would be a greater challenge to find creeds or moral systems that reject it (there have been such cults, granted; but arguably the exception proves the rule)
In Hindu scripture (the Mahabharata) dating from circa 500 BC, one finds "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". (5:1517)
In China, we find in the Confucian Analects (15:23) ""Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you", and also, from the Doctrine of the Mean (13.3) "Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'"
Many examples abound, though as ever with on-line material, one needs to dig to satisfy oneself the quotes are accurate. Google on 'Golden Rule', or make a start here.
Now, as you demanded of me (I do not say "asked of me"), I have provided you with an answer, although you have provided no answer to my civil questions of you in posts 469 and 470--indeed, your only reply to those posts was to call me a "moral relativist" and state your "suspicious of your claims that you are Christian."
Do you consider your behaviour in our exchange in accordance with the teaching of Matthew 7:12.?
Or are you still intending, in accordance with the principle of recipricocity, to answer my original questions to you, to wit:
[Post 469] "is it your contention--as your post [291] implies--that non-Christians believe and advocate murder, theft, and hatred?", and
[Post 470] "Is being Christian, in your view, a necessary condition of being a good American?"
Just curious.