Yes, it is righteous judgement. And yes, it is appropriate that a rule by which you are instructed to live is applied in determining righteous judgement. For example a law that forbids murder would be applied in a righteous judgement.
Enough, I can't waste any more time with this.
This has nothing to do with what I said. Again; I have no problem with the righteous judgment rule; it's just not the golden rule. (and you say I have a hard time understanding english?)
When I've been proven wrong, I admit to my mistake and change my opinion on the issue. What do YOU do?
Perhaps it's because when it comes to my discussions with you, I've never been proven wrong!
This is simply false. Morality is clearly relative and cultural. This is easily demonstrated. What passes for religious morality changes along with the broader culture and it always has. If there was consensus on what is, or is not moral, you might have a point, but there is no consensus. How could you prove to me that there is a universal moral norm?
Next time you see such a case, point it out to me. It was probably a case where you felt I was wrong, but I felt I was not.
I don't. Perhaps you can tell me what you're talking about and I can clear things up for ya.
Most people believe a lot of things. That doesn't mean they are correct in those beliefs.
I apologize for the late response. You are correct. What I meant to say is that morality cannot exist in an absolute sense unless there was an objective or absolute standard to measure it. However, without some standard, morality only exists in a hypothetical and intangible ether. It is like floating in the vacuum of space arguing with your friend about which way is north. Who is right? Yes, in space, the idea of "north" exists. However, does it actually exist in reality? No! It does not. Now if the two both establish that a specific star defines "north," now you have something to measure but it still doesn't change the fact that this 'standard' is subjective. Therefore, it only exists by a collective consensus, not in reality. This same holds true for morality. Yes, it can exist in a hypothetical sense that is subjectively determined by majority consensus. But claiming one person's morality superior to another is like determining the goodness of a rock.
Since you are making the argument that a moral consensus cannot be achieved without an objective overarching moral structure, I have to assume you are unfamiliar with the counter arguments. I suggest reading a few books on secular moral philosophy before continuing to make this claim. There are defeaters for the argument you are making. If you are interested, let me know, I can reckoned some good books. If not, oh well.
