Are Morals Relevant?

[redleghunter]

Oh dear...someone has difficulty in distinguishing between personal choices that only impact the individual and anti-social behaviours that impact the whole community...

Tell me how abortion does not impact the individual in the womb. His comparison is valid.

 

[redleghunter]

Sorry, no double standard here. I don’t confer the same status on a foetus as I do to a living, independently surviving individual...

Which is a self determined sovereignty. Which allows any individual to determine what is and what is not valuable human life. The blueprint for self to define what is human and what is subhuman. I think I've seen this method before. So has Simon Wiesenthal and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

 

[redleghunter]

Remember those people who have claimed to have seen Area 51 aliens...?

That's cute. I've actually been there and on the inside. Sad to say I was not involved in any alien autopsies.

Yawn

Indeed.

 

[redleghunter]

Matthew 27:52 has no external accounts, outside this one verse. You are going to honestly tell me this verse is credible? No historian, news paper, journal entry, or other was provided to talk about the undead walking around for many to see? Seriously? Also, 1 Corinthians was never corroborated. It was hearsay from Paul, nothing more. Writing it down to paper ~20 years later is even more suspect. How do we even know who all these 500 people actually were. There was no list, no follow up, no nothing?.?.?.?

So it's implausible Matthew either personally witnessed this or when writing his gospel account took into account the eyewitness testimony?

There are no external accounts of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar nor Pompeii existing. Only Roman accounts. Tell me the difference. Again this is quite an anachronistic assertion.

The text says these saints were risen. Not zombies. You may want to lay off the Walking Dead episodes a bit.

Again asking for external sources when for non Biblical historical accounts none exist, is establishing an untenable stsndard. A standard no historical document from antiquity would pass. This is what's called the "self licking ice cream cone" fallacy.

There is unanimous agreement from NT scholars and historians that the apostle Paul wrote 1 Corinthians circa 54 AD.

At least the Mormons had 7 signed 'eyewitnesses' from their circular and bias publication;
Joseph Smith, Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith were all signed in real tim

Yet only Joseph Smith could read the plates with the stone. This is called a sole source. Much like how the Qur'an was written...one dude Muhammad.

I don't know... Did they make unverified and unjustified supernatural claims too? If they did, then it must be true, because we know the Roman empire actually existed then, right?

Most of what we know of the Roman empire comes from the Bible and accounts of Christian church writers.
All the manuscript evidence or Roman empire figures comes from 10th century Catholic monks scribes.

I don't recall any prior conversation before? But I'm sorry, if zombies is not accurate, then the undead bodies 'whom came out of their tombs and appeared to many.' - In which no one reported in the news or other. I guess this was common place during this time period, and did not warrant any publication from the 'many' whom saw such a phenomenon?

Are you truly still making this 21st century claim for independent disinterested sources? Such was not heard of in 1st century AD. Again in an effort to impeach the abundance of Biblical evidence you nuke all history from antiquity.

As stated many times now, it's one thing to believe humans lived, fought, and died. It's a completely different thing to believe any claimed accounts of the supernatural. I find it bazaar, that all claims and accounts of the supernatural, are only from the Bible, to support the Bible

Perhaps you should reconsider the above.

The Bible is a collection of 66 books written by dozens of different writers over a 4,000+ year period.

So your logic as I see it above says miracles just don't happen, therefore any sources claiming miracles are false because we just know miracles don't happen.

Remember, the vast majority of the Bible was written from oral tradition, retold many many times, which involves growing legendary tales, prior to publication.

Where do you get this nonsense from?

I take you you ignored this link I already provided to hundreds of scholars who date the majority of NT books to before 70AD. No time for legends. Do the math. Meaning the majority of the people who witnessed the events of Jesus ministry, death and Resurrection were still alive (as Paul confirms ) and not influenced by oral tradition.

Contemporary writings and published works of the supernatural, OUTSIDE the Bible. I doubt the Bible was the only and single source for news during this era?

With every post you inform me on how much you need to hit the history books on the era you opine on.

 

[Allandavid]

Which is a self determined sovereignty. Which allows any individual to determine what is and what is not valuable human life. The blueprint for self to define what is human and what is subhuman. I think I've seen this method before. So has Simon Wiesenthal and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

No, in the case of abortion, the individual is making a determination for themself and themself only...

Now, you will disagree, because you hold that even a single fertilised cell is to be held in the same light as a fully formed, self-sustaining individual.

Fine...you will act accordingly...for yourself...

However, this is one of those areas in which, societally, the lines are blurred rather than crisp. A consensus forms across a society, rather than a hard and fast, black and white determination. And, whether you or I like it or not, that consensus currently falls in favour of individual choice.

We’ve been talking about slavery and an analogy here is appropriate...the social consensus used to be one in favour of the practice. It has since steadily evolved, to the point that we now observe in which slavers are regarded as the pariahs of humanity...

Your hyperbolic reference to the works of Solzhenitsyn and Wiesenthal is misplaced...

 

[Allandavid]

That's cute. I've actually been there and on the inside. Sad to say I was not involved in any alien autopsies.

Ah, but the ‘faithful’ would say that you were observing with the eyes of an unbeliever...of course you didn’t see them...!

 

[Ken-1122]

I reject the notion of a 10 year old.

Do you reject the notion of a 12 year old? Or a 14 year old? Most people in modern society do.

And remember to be betrothed did not mean marriage and sex involved. It meant the families agreed to the eventual union of the couple. It is akin of the "matchmaker make me a match."

Are you claiming they weren’t having sex at that age? What are you basing this on?

And you are right these are cultural standards which changed throughout history. However, the example from @Apologetic_Warrior was an infant being sexually molested. Perhaps people can now answer his question without creating rabbit holes.

What difference does it make if the child is an infant, 10 years old, or 12 years old? It’s all wrong by todays standards isn’t it? That’s the point I was making.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you had asked, I would have explained clearly, that the Christian worldview entails BOTH objective and subjective morality, not either OR, the objective is accounted for in God, and the subjective in His creatures. How simple is that?

It’s simple, but that’s where we disagree. IMO it doesn’t matter if the morality comes from humans, space aliens, fairies, or God; morality is subjective to what they believe; not based in fact. This makes morality subjective, and under no circumstances objective.

Bet you cannot account for or justify any objective good or evil within your worldview without borrowing from mine, which you do, like it or not.

Good and evil are subjective; not objective.

, Interesting, I wasn't raised in Hebrew society, and yet that is what my morality is based on, Biblical ethics.

Of course! That’s because as a Christian the society you were raised in is greatly influenced by Hebrew society of 2000 years ago

,As a matter of fact, the Biblical morality I agree with, goes against the morality of the society I was raised in, and laws related to ethics have been changed, which are against ethics taught in Scripture. Further, the Biblical/Christian ethic, has never changed,

2000 years ago, Christian ethics was okay with human sacrifice; as a matter of fact their “plan of salvation” was based on human sacrifice. Today if there were a religion that was killing virgins to appease sins, Christians would be the first ones to stand against it proclaiming it wrong.
Christians used to believe it was wrong for a woman to preach or even teach men. Today most Christians have no problem with it. In light of this, how can you claim Christian ethics has never changed?

Unfortunately, within your worldview, even math is subjective, because you see, mathematics are conceptual and immaterial in nature,

Conceptual and immaterial is not the definition of subjective.

Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

As you see from the above definition, objective means based on fact, and can be demonstrated as true. Math fits that definition.

You forgot an important word to my claim, the word "infant", which makes a world of difference.

In the context of the point being made; what difference does it make?

This isn't my first rodeo, I've been down this road many times. If I had worded it differently, you might try arguing that it could potentially be necessary for the survival or continuation of a race, family line, etc. That argument cannot be used with infants.

I have no interest in making that argument. But let me try again; can you demonstrate why raping an infant is wrong?

There is no need to provide proof, but it's interesting you should ask.

If you can’t provide proof that it is sick and disgusting (which I agree with by the way) this shows your claim is based on personal beliefs and opinions rather than fact.

So basically morality is a human construct, an illusion, a way of describing behavior,

Morality isn't a description of behavior, they are principles that distinguish good and bad behavior.

but essentially it is no different than what we evolved from,

We evolved from material. The principles of morality are not material, they are the result of thought.

and ultimately matters about as much as the stardust that everything will eventually return to?

Did you read this out of a book? Or are you just makin’ stuff up as you go along. Are you sure this isn’t your first rodeo? Where are you getting this stuff? Sounds like something you might have picked up from one of those other roads you’ve been down that you were talking about earlier.

 

[dmmesdale]

It’s simple, but that’s where we disagree. IMO it doesn’t matter if the morality comes from humans, space aliens, fairies, or God;

It would matter with God since the obligations (honor your mother and father) or prohibitions would transcend time and culture. The same objective standards would apply to all persons everywhere. Thou shall not murder would apply to all persons everywhere.

morality is subjective to what they believe; not based in fact. This makes morality subjective, and under no circumstances objective.

Good and evil are subjective; not objective.

Subjective good and evil do not even resonate with atheists who moan and groan about slavery in the Bible. Alleged rape etc. Subjective morals historically lead to the murder of women and children by gas chambers via the Nazi's for congenitally unfit. Noncombatants totally helpless. So your stance does not resonate even with atheists who would rightfully view it as wrong. Wrong for all people at all times. It sounds like you are finding common ground with the Nazi's here. Not a good place to be.

Of course! That’s because as a Christian the society you were raised in is greatly influenced by Hebrew society of 2000 years ago

Ancient Hittite law allowed for sex with horses and mules while Mosiac law forbids, subject to death. Were both equally valid or was one better than the other? Under yours, both would be just fine. Since morals are subjective. An ancient Hittite could have sex with his horse as much as he pleased and there was no right or wrong about it. Do you really want to go there?

2000 years ago, Christian ethics was okay with human sacrifice; as a matter of fact their “plan of salvation” was based on human sacrifice.

Not really. Jesus was executed in Roman style. There are some nuanced differences which is being glossed over here. The execution was a one-time event. Human sacrifice is not a practice in Christianity. In other places, human sacrifice was a continual event. It was the biblical basis for the expulsion of the Canaanites from the land.

Today if there were a religion that was killing virgins to appease sins, Christians would be the first ones to stand against it proclaiming it wrong.
Christians used to believe it was wrong for a woman to preach or even teach men. Today most Christians have no problem with it. In light of this, how can you claim Christian ethics has never changed?

Cultures and times have changed. Thou shall not murder has not changed.

As you see from the above definition, objective means based on fact, and can be demonstrated as true. Math fits that definition.

Facts are independent of human minds. Not mind-dependent. Facts do have to be demonstrated to be facts. There is your error.

I have no interest in making that argument. But let me try again; can you demonstrate why raping an infant is wrong?

See above. It would be a fact (infant raping) whether demonstrated or not. If Thou shall not murder is ultimately by an ancient man or men then it is not a fact.
If Thou shall not murder is by the finger of God then it is a fact which applies to all persons everywhere equally.

If man is murdered then the only equal remedy is the killing of the murderer by man. If the murderer is allowed to live then there is inequality in that the life of the murderer is of more value than the life of the victim. The idea that only God can take the life of the premeditated murderer has no biblical basis. It is up to man to meter out justice which would be to execute the murderer to restore balance. (Prager) Rational Bible.

 

[redleghunter]

What difference does it make if the child is an infant, 10 years old, or 12 years old? It’s all wrong by todays standards isn’t it? That’s the point I was making.

It's a good attempt to not answer the question posed.

 

[Drought of the Heart]

Even if I attempt to abide by 'good' moral standings, to the best of my abilities... Meaning, don't kill, rape, steal, lie, murder, trespass, be kind to others, etc...

But I do not believe in a risen Jesus, because one cannot choose what to believe; and my needed evidence for belief appears lacking.... According to Christian theology, I will rot in hell.

So tell me how morals are actually even relevant, in regards to Christianity? It appears belief is the only driving source.

Thanks

Hebrews 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


We are to strive to as Jesus was until we die

 

[cvanwey]

Hebrews 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


We are to strive to as Jesus was until we die

You must be late to the party...

'And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.'

I trust you know this verse? So prove it

 

[Drought of the Heart]

You must be late to the party...

'And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.'

I trust you know this verse? So prove it

1 Corinthians 15 after that verse , never pull one verse read entire chapter
33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

It’s simple, but that’s where we disagree. IMO it doesn’t matter if the morality comes from humans, space aliens, fairies, or God; morality is subjective to what they believe; not based in fact. This makes morality subjective, and under no circumstances objective. Good and evil are subjective; not objective.

Of course the presupposition of a completely subjective morality cannot lead to any objective morality, because it is ruled out from the start, and somehow you're making a knowledge claim with certainty, without exhaustive knowledge and without an objective grounds for 100% certainty. At least you are consistent with your worldview concerning morality, I will give you that much.

Of course! That’s because as a Christian the society you were raised in is greatly influenced by Hebrew society of 2000 years ago

Your argument was "morality is based on the society they were raised in". My argument is, I wasn't raised in a Christian society. In fact, I went to public schools, and let's just say not many kids took the "golden rule" seriously, and I did not receive a Christian education. The primary influence of Hebrew society is mostly found inside of a Church where the sins of sinners are restrained. Many so called Christians live like the devil Mon-Sat, and put on the robes of a Saint come Sun, but I suspect you know this already, and it is a valid criticism, however there are many different reasons behind this commonly observed phenomenon that I will not get into at present.

2000 years ago, Christian ethics was okay with human sacrifice; as a matter of fact their “plan of salvation” was based on human sacrifice. Today if there were a religion that was killing virgins to appease sins, Christians would be the first ones to stand against it proclaiming it wrong.

While it is true salvation in Christianity is based on A single human sacrifice, in Christianity it is more than A human sacrifice, it is the sacrifice of the God-man, who triumped over death, Hell, and the grave. Christianity has never been okay with human sacrifice, Christians did not nail Christ to the cross, He was betrayed by the apostate Judas.

Christians used to believe it was wrong for a woman to preach or even teach men. Today most Christians have no problem with it. In light of this, how can you claim Christian ethics has never changed?

As I said before, the Christian worldview entail BOTH objective and subjective ethics. It is true society and culture had a role in the response to the interpretations of the Pentateuch in the New Testament period.

Conceptual and immaterial is not the definition of subjective.

Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

As you see from the above definition, objective means based on fact, and can be demonstrated as true. Math fits that definition.

Objective means outside (or apart from) the existence of self, it is the opposite of relative to the person, which is subjectivism. I should have added "universal" to "conceptual and immaterial" I realized this afterwards. However the point still stands.

If you can’t provide proof that it is sick and disgusting (which I agree with by the way) this shows your claim is based on personal beliefs and opinions rather than fact.

And what kind of proof are you seeking? Logical proof should be more than sufficient. Or the logic of "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you", yeah Biblical logic is more than sufficient. Rocket science is not required to understand the sick and twisted nature of such an abominable sin.

Morality isn't a description of behavior, they are principles that distinguish good and bad behavior.

And how would you describe those "principals" what is the nature of them?

We evolved from material. The principles of morality are not material, they are the result of thought.

Mathematics are not material either, so here you pick and choose which you profess to be "objective".

Did you read this out of a book? Or are you just makin’ stuff up as you go along. Are you sure this isn’t your first rodeo? Where are you getting this stuff? Sounds like something you might have picked up from one of those other roads you’ve been down that you were talking about earlier.

Sorry to disappoint, but I've never had an original thought, of course it is because for what can be called "fact" are the interpreted "facts", which were already comprehensively known by God and so for man to discover a fact, he is as it were, thinking God's though AFTER Him, not exhaustively but to the extent He has revealed and given man the faculties to be a Dependent interpreter.

 

[Drought of the Heart]

1 Corinthians 15 after that verse , never pull one verse read entire chapter
33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

2 Timothy 2:14Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

God Bless

 

[JoeP222w]

All moral intelligent beings decide.

Since God is the only moral intelligent being, He is the one who defines morality. Man does not define morality, clearly shown in that man's morality is in constant change, so man is not the standard.

Empathy allows us to understand what is helpful or harmful to our neighbors.

The Atheistic worldview has no source of empathy if life is just survival of the fittest.

As intelligent beings, we are much more than that.

Not according to Darwinian Evolution.

If that is the true message of Christianity, I am sorry for you and anyone who accepts that message. I can only hope you can grow beyond it and learn how to become a moral person.

Why are you sorry? You have no basis for feelings for me, either good or bad, without stealing from the Christian worldview.

You are not a good person, no one is. If you believe you are, you are calling God a liar.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

 

[redleghunter]

In my estimation, Matthew was the title later applied to this Gospel writing. Most likely, Mathew did not write Matthew

That was the opinion of 19th century skeptics based on no historical evidence. The external evidence shows Matthew as the author as the very earliest church fathers quoted Matthew and attributed the gospel to him. Do we believe historians from the same period or wait 18 more centuries to try to figure it out?

The agnostic 19th century skeptics tried to recreate the Bible without regard to 18 centuries of history. Their claim was we could not trust the early church to give an accurate report. That seems to be your position as well, which ignores history.

Yes, and as I've stated many times now, I don't think Alexander was the son of Zeus, or possessed any supernatural powers. Any tales later written, attempting to demonstrate any actions, were most likely later written from growing legendary embellishments. Yes, much of history possesses some hard black and white facts, while some may be later slanted.

That wasn't my point. Can you provide evidence Alexander even existed outside of Greek culture and history? I've yet to see evidence of this provided.

You are harping on a very minor observation.

I challenged back based on what Matthew wrote and how he received the information. Is it implausible that Matthew sat down with eyewitnesses to the event in question and recorded the event? Is it implausible Matthew was an actual eyewitness to the account?

However, we are talking about the Bible. The Bible claims the Bible was inspired from, or given by God. So... I'm holding the Bible to a higher standard. Why? Because it claims to be written by, and provided/guided by a non-human. If true, this greatly differs from any other formal human written historical account.

It does differ as in the Bible the very words are confirmed by God's Power. Concluding that the supernatural does not happen therefore we cannot examine the supernatural in Holy Scriptures is a circular argument.

The Christian claim is God has revealed Himself in Holy Scriptures and they are available to examine the evidence.

A higher standard? Sure you can do that but must be consistent. If you believe Julius Caesar is everything our history books says he was, then you should not impeach the source of the Bible books and at least examine their claims.

If you dismiss the claims based on "the supernatural does not exist" then the burden of proof is on you to eliminate the plausibility of an uncreated Creator acting on His own creation.

Paul started, or appears to be the catalyst for Christianity, based upon a vision seen traveling to Damascus.

No it was actually at Pentecost see Acts 2.

Paul never claimed to see a resurrection 3 days later. We actually have no first hand account eyewitness testimony, by definition. We instead have later hearsay, legendary growing tales, and oral tradition, later written to paper.

I said Paul was a witness to the risen and glorified Christ as he says that He appeared to him. We see this in 1 Corinthians 15:8

Nope. I just call it like I see it... The Bible was not the sole source for all events in history of this time.

Not the sole source but by manuscript evidence the majority attested to the period.

Rome fell and Christendom succeeded it. The entire history of the Western world was in the hands of Christians by the 5th century AD.

This has no relevance...

I'm talking about the resurrection claim alone.

Which Resurrection claim?

Even if the entire NT was written 25 years after a claimed supernatural event, you are honestly going to tell me legendary embellishment cannot take place?.?.?.?.? I trust I do not need me to provide examples of such cases

According to historians the answer is no.

The reason? Most of the people were still alive. The original witnesses to the ministry and work of Christ and the early church. You keep ignoring this fact.

Unless of course you are suggesting there was a concerted effort to deceive, like a conspiracy theory.

Actually, I feel it's the other way around

Your responses are of the kind of someone who has not examined the works discussed and relying on an apologetics site for canned answers.

The Christians here on CF for the most part have been students of the Bible and the history surrounding the Bible for many years. Some for over 40 years. It's kind of difficult to Buffalo us. Meaning there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[redleghunter]

We’ve been talking about slavery and an analogy here is appropriate...the social consensus used to be one in favour of the practice. It has since steadily evolved, to the point that we now observe in which slavers are regarded as the pariahs of humanity...

Perhaps in word but not deed. Slavery still exists and their are more people in slavery today than back in the 18th century by just adjusting for population growth. As I stated we use euphemisms such as Human Trafficking to get around the "s" word.

I also mentioned cheap labor and child labor is commensurate with slavery as well. Some in the SJW movement would also call low wages where people live in poverty just surviving is slavery as well. It's still here.

Safe space university life will talk a good game, but the same ones telling us attitudes and actions have changed still embrace the very consumerism which is keeping the majority of the world's population in squalor.

The missionaries see it, the churches see it and NGO relief groups see it.

So you can be correct in saying those in the West abolished slavery by vote or decree, but all that happened was it no longer happens on our shores and has been exported and expanded in the third world.

 

[Ken-1122]

It would matter with God since the obligations (honor your mother and father) or prohibitions would transcend time and culture. The same objective standards would apply to all persons everywhere. Thou shall not murder would apply to all persons everywhere.

The same can be said about any one else's morality; they can be applied to all persons everywhere.

Subjective good and evil do not even resonate with atheists who moan and groan about slavery in the Bible. Alleged rape etc.

Have I moaned and groaned about slavery in the Bible or alleged rape? Sounds like you’re confusing me with someone from one of your past rodeo’s; or someone from one of those roads you’ve claimed to have gone down in your previous post.

Subjective morals historically lead to the murder of women and children by gas chambers via the Nazi's for congenitally unfit. Noncombatants totally helpless.

Subjective morality has lead to those things because subjective morality is the only morality that exists.

So your stance does not resonate even with atheists who would rightfully view it as wrong. Wrong for all people at all times. It sounds like you are finding common ground with the Nazi's here. Not a good place to be.

Tell you what; whatever you’ve heard from other atheists, don't assume it applies to me, and whatever I’ve heard from other theists, I won’t assume it applies to you. Fair enough?

Ancient Hittite law allowed for sex with horses and mules while Mosiac law forbids, subject to death. Were both equally valid or was one better than the other? Under yours, both would be just fine. Since morals are subjective. An ancient Hittite could have sex with his horse as much as he pleased and there was no right or wrong about it. Do you really want to go there?

You appear to be confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says that it is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong.”

Not really. Jesus was executed in Roman style. There are some nuanced differences which is being glossed over here. The execution was a one-time event. Human sacrifice is not a practice in Christianity. In other places, human sacrifice was a continual event. It was the biblical basis for the expulsion of the Canaanites from the land.

The men who wrote the scriptures didn't have a problem with human sacrifice for religious purposes; if they did it wouldn’t have been made such a major part of the religion.

Cultures and times have changed. Thou shall not murder has not changed.

Some things have changed, some things have not changed. But to say nothing has changed, is to ignore reality.

Facts are independent of human minds. Not mind-dependent. Facts do have to be demonstrated to be facts. There is your error.

Then you should have no problem providing a list of facts that cannot be proven as true! Would you mind?

See above. It would be a fact (infant raping) whether demonstrated or not. If Thou shall not murder is ultimately by an ancient man or men then it is not a fact.
If Thou shall not murder is by the finger of God then it is a fact which applies to all persons everywhere equally.

So you claim morality from mankind is not based on fact, but morality from God is? Do you have anything to back up this claim other than your word? Or is this just another unsupported claim?

 

[Ken-1122]

It's a good attempt to not answer the question posed.

What question have I not answered? "Is raping an infant wrong"? Yes it is subjectively wrong. Why? Because all right or wrong is subjective. I think I've been very clear about this.

 

[redleghunter]

What question have I not answered? "Is raping an infant wrong"? Yes it is subjectively wrong. Why? Because all right or wrong is subjective. I think I've been very clear about this.

Now that you have answered subjectively in the negative as being against it, you must answer how it would be subjectively applied as acceptable.