TransAge

[SilverBear]

On what basis do you evaluate what has merit and what doesn't? If the standard on which you consider things meritorious is based on survival then in order to do so you unfoundedly ascribe (assume) value to human life. Who's preference would be correct and why if it's based on merit anyway? How could you determine x as being true that x has merit?

In this instance it would be legal merit. Those wanting polyagamy to again be legal have to make their own arguemtns.

If I have an inborn preference towards being a drunkard, which unfortunately I do, that still does not mean that getting off my face is right. It's still sin.

And orientation is not actually comparable to being an alcoholic. To be an alcoholic one needs to consume alcohol to excess more than once. And even with a genetic predisposition there is no certainty that doing so would make one an alcoholic. One is gay straight or bi without ever having to engage in any action or behavior at all. You are who you are which is why virgins have an orientation even if they have never done anything about it.

According to the universal morality that God imposes by His very existence (because of His attributes and the nature of us being a creation) homosexuality is still wrong regardless if you have an inborn preference for the particular sinful behaviour.

So?
[/QUOTE]

Mate I live in a Country that doesn't have a constitution [edit: but it did] legalise homosexual marriage and yet I still disagree with your Country that does have a constitution on exactly the same basis I disagree with mine. Under a secular worldview the human rights you assume to be inherent do not exist, they need a reason as to why they do and if human rights are merely social agreements without any justification for the truth of them then it's a non sequitur to assume it's authoritative in any way. Social agreements amongst creatures based on personal preference have no inherent value, it's the worldview that you're situated in that makes it possible to legilsate any moral behaviours or even classify them as such. I.e the Imago Dei.


Arguing that there's no epistemic justification for behaviour is not pearl clutching

[Edit: Phrasing]

Sexual orientation isn't a behavior

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The examples above are of course silly, but they were and are invoked as reasons against same-sex relationships. It’s the same level of pearl clutching as “transage-ism.”

In order for the rest your theories in your post to hold water, same-sex relationships and attractions would have to be classified as “wrong.” They are not wrong, they’re just not something you are comfortable with. However, your discomfort is not relevant to the formation of policy based off of intrinsic human rights.

Human Rights > Christianity?

 

[SilverBear]

A lot of the Rainbow Community are the way they are b/c they were sexually abused as children & are so very against pedophilia.

There is actually no evidence of this. meta analysis of hundreds of studies about child abuse show that until about he age of 12-14 homosexuals are no more and no less likely to have experienced any sort of abuse including sexual than their heterosexual counterparts. It's only after entering the teen years that the incidence of abuse among homosexuals increased dramatically, About the time family members figure out their kid is not straight or the kid gets outed to parents. Abuse doesn't make anyone gay but being gay does seem to cause parental abuse.

Another possibility would be to gradually, very gradually, lower the age of consent. 17 in 10 years, 16 after 10 more, etc. It’s a process. Those who want this stuff play long-game. They would do that by advocating minors understand sex & so can consent. Instead of it being a rape, it’d be loving & gentle. “Love is love”

interestingly enough the exact opposite has happened

 

[dzheremi]

Human Rights > Christianity?

It seems pretty clear to anyone who is paying attention that the secular human rights regime is what is replacing/has replaced Christianity in the entire western world, and increasingly elsewhere. Do you know what the largest LGBT lobbying group in the United States is called? The Human Rights Campaign. Like they encapsulate all of the human rights people are to be concerned with or can have!

HG Bishop Suriel, when he was still serving in one of the Coptic Orthodox dioceses in Australia, once commented on this irony in the wake of one of the recent attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt a few years ago, saying something like "Oh, good! I thought here we would have a group that could join with us to help guarantee the rights of the Copts and other persecuted minorities in Egypt and the Middle East, but no. It turns out they are only concerned with who they want to sleep with." Perhaps a bit blunt to western ears, but it doesn't seem like this is a wrong assessment. LGBT stuff is very much the 'in' issue nowadays, and it is absolutely crowding out not only Christianity, but even the conceptual space to address the fact that other issues even still exist. That might seem hyperbolic to some people here, but I tried for years to circulate petitions among the people I know who cover their social media in LGBT stuff to show what great 'allies' they are, and even on websites like Tumblr that are known (or were known at the time) for their high concentration of young political idealists, and in every case I got virtually no signers, even as these same people continued to post endlessly about how terribly unfair and oppressive the world is because people sometimes call trans people by the now-wrong pronoun. God forbid that it be recognized that people are sometimes oppressed for reasons unrelated to their jiggly bits. That's not what matters anymore. Society's thought-leaders have spoken, and the consensus 'we' have supposedly all arrived at is Human Rights™ for zee, not for thee.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

In this instance it would be legal merit. Those wanting polyagamy to again be legal have to make their own arguemtns.

You're missing the argument. On what basis would you decide something is meritorious legally? The weighing of evidence for moral actions against one another requires a standard on which to do so, if that moral standard is The Bible then Homosexuality stands condemned, incorrect and "abominable". If it's secular then it's without an ability to claim moral truths as in order to do so you need to have a standard on which to evaluate behaviour and that standard needs to be authoritative in order to legislate specific behaviour. Otherwise it's just merely personal preferences towards stimulus versus someone else's personal preferences towards stimulus. On top of that you're stuck in the position of assuming inherent value towards specific things (human life, certain moral actions & etc) that are unable to substantiated within a secular Naturalistic dogma.

Sexual orientation isn't a behavior

Not sure if you're arguing in good faith here because they made specific actions based upon sexual orientation legal. Which is evidently the point I was making.

And orientation is not actually comparable to being an alcoholic. To be an alcoholic one needs to consume alcohol to excess more than once. And even with a genetic predisposition there is no certainty that doing so would make one an alcoholic. One is gay straight or bi without ever having to engage in any action or behavior at all. You are who you are which is why virgins have an orientation even if they have never done anything about it.

I was saying that just because I have a tendency towards something sinful, a tendency that is inborn, it does not mean that it's right or that it excuses the behaviour that flows from that tendency. Sin is sin regardless of the 'inborn-ness' of it or not.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

(staff edit) largely because people can find a justification for just about any action and claim that it is moral.

People getting the moral standard wrong =/= it being a poor moral standard. The idea that the interpretation of morality is somehow indicative of the moral value of said standard is a logical non sequitur. The Bible is not pluralistic and in order to claim it as such is to claim that a moral standard (something not relative) is relative, which is incoherent.

If the alternative is between a socially agreed upon ideal and an arbitrary standard from a different time and culture I will go with the ideals of society.
You can claim that such a system could lead to all sorts of atrocities but the alternative actually does lead to all sorts of atrocities.
(staff edit)

I'm not claiming that it will lead to all sorts of atrocities, even though as evidenced by the bloodshed of the 20th century it does, but I'm claiming that you're unable to claim anything as good without it being arbitrary & un-athoritative because your basis on which to do so within your paradigm is assumed and requires Christian presuppositions in order to give it justification that don't exist within a secular worldview. A socially agreed upon ideal within the paradigm of Naturalism or Materialism (the thing which makes evidence, evidence in secular worldviews) is unable to be authoritative. If what is morally correct is different to each person (subjective morality) then everything is arbitrary and societal agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them.

When you call things 'good' or 'best' it is entirely arbitrary. You have no fixed standards on which to judge anything. For example; the Romans who created the longest lasting empire waged warfare continuously. Something that would be seen as obscene today. If your morality is based upon practicality and what works, then a society who's economic basis is built upon slavery (The Romans) would view slavery as 'good' or 'best'. In order to call the Romans wrong for building their empire on the backs of slaves you would need a reason as to why slavery is wrong both for them and us. In which case in order to do so you would assume a moral standard (something not relative). Yet under a secular worldview you're forced into moral relativity which is completely incoherent with your position that homosexuality is in fact morally ok.

(staff edit)

The fact that you don't understand that you're assuming the value of human life without justification or a reason as to it's existence/truth when you assume that causing harm is wrong, shows that the reasoning of believing there is a measuring stick that's used to say it is ok, when in fact the measuring stick under a secular morality is entirely arbitrary & un-authoritative - is flawed.

[Edit: phrasing & exposition]

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I disagree, they are wrong. If your morality has it's genesis in biology then you're forced into subjective morality as under a naturalistic framework society come about through beings who evolved. If society is comprised of beings who evolved, then the morals of that society came about through evolution as the individuals in your worldview who determine what morals are acceptable in said society have the origin or cause for their morality due to evolution. Therefore if two societies have morals that appose one another, take the islamic east in regards to homosexuality and the west in regards to it's secular morality for example, which one would be right and why? On what basis can you even disagree if it's due to evolution? Both societies have gotten their morals through evolution so both would be correct and regardless, even if you were to have a reason as to why they their opinion would be wrong according to evolution, you would need to have a reason as to why your morality should be authoritative over theirs.

If what is morally correct is different to each person or society (subjective morality) then everything is personal preference and societal agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them. In order to say certain behaviours are right and should be mandated, or even to ascribe any value to specific behaviours at all, is to require a basis on which these actions and their causes can be evaluated. Which obviously under subjective morality is impossible to construct and in order to do so you would need to assume a moral standard (something not relative).

There is no justification for correct moral stances apart from a transcendent source, without it you're just stating personal preference.


On what basis do you claim intrinsic human rights? If it's The Bible or God then homosexuality is condemned as sin in both the Old Testament and New Testament. Human rights don't exist in any Naturalistic or Materialistic paradigm. There's no inherent reason as to why matter matters within them.

Well that’s where the conversation ends, I guess, because I don’t think homosexuality is immoral. I think it’s a status like any other and thus morally neutral. I also don’t think that human rights aren’t intrinsic, nor do I think it’s Biblical to say they aren’t.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Human Rights > Christianity?

Is that a real question?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Well that’s where the conversation ends, I guess, because I don’t think homosexuality is immoral. I think it’s a status like any other and thus morally neutral. I also don’t think that human rights aren’t intrinsic, nor do I think it’s Biblical to say they aren’t.

Forgive me, when I say homosexuality I'm talking about the acts. To be homosexual or to have temptations towards it is not sinful in of itself, though it is a result of our corrupted state and results from our "body of death" as Paul put it.

Homosexual acts were made legal which is the cause of dispute. And in regards to Homosexual marriage being made legal, I would appose as it is against creation (Romans 1:27) which is consequently one of the reasons I try to keep the sabbath (Genesis 2:3) and affirm the traditional meaning of marriage as between a man and a woman, because of the created order.

I also don’t think that human rights aren’t intrinsic, nor do I think it’s Biblical to say they aren’t.

The reason they exist is because of the Imago Dei, without it the only inherent value in people is assumed without a basis (a basis doesn't exist independent of a transcendent cause). The reason people have value is because of God and it can't be assumed that they do without Him without it being entirely arbitrary and also without a justification that's not assumed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It seems pretty clear to anyone who is paying attention that the secular human rights regime is what is replacing/has replaced Christianity in the entire western world, and increasingly elsewhere. Do you know what the largest LGBT lobbying group in the United States is called? The Human Rights Campaign. Like they encapsulate all of the human rights people are to be concerned with or can have!

HG Bishop Suriel, when he was still serving in one of the Coptic Orthodox dioceses in Australia, once commented on this irony in the wake of one of the recent attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt a few years ago, saying something like "Oh, good! I thought here we would have a group that could join with us to help guarantee the rights of the Copts and other persecuted minorities in Egypt and the Middle East, but no. It turns out they are only concerned with who they want to sleep with." Perhaps a bit blunt to western ears, but it doesn't seem like this is a wrong assessment. LGBT stuff is very much the 'in' issue nowadays, and it is absolutely crowding out not only Christianity, but even the conceptual space to address the fact that other issues even still exist. That might seem hyperbolic to some people here, but I tried for years to circulate petitions among the people I know who cover their social media in LGBT stuff to show what great 'allies' they are, and even on websites like Tumblr that are known (or were known at the time) for their high concentration of young political idealists, and in every case I got virtually no signers, even as these same people continued to post endlessly about how terribly unfair and oppressive the world is because people sometimes call trans people by the now-wrong pronoun. God forbid that it be recognized that people are sometimes oppressed for reasons unrelated to their jiggly bits. That's not what matters anymore. Society's thought-leaders have spoken, and the consensus 'we' have supposedly all arrived at is Human Rights™ for zee, not for thee.

Yep. They're attempting to "colonize" the human rights concept so as to recontextualize it. One has to be concerned with the language of "breaking down barriers..." they use, among other things.

On the other hand, when Christians who are Theonomists say something with a similarly laced political protocol, I also get concerned.

And that's why I stay North of Center in all of this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well that’s where the conversation ends, I guess, because I don’t think homosexuality is immoral. I think it’s a status like any other and thus morally neutral. I also don’t think that human rights aren’t intrinsic, nor do I think it’s Biblical to say they aren’t.

The conversation only ends for those who are despondent enough to ignore all of the various philosophical, social and political facts that need to be taken into account on the whole.

One of those facts is that without Jesus Christ at the core of any Human Rights articulation, it carries minimal intrinsic weight and leaves little that can be promotable for full acceptance on a more universalizable scale.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Forgive me, when I say homosexuality I'm talking about the acts. To be homosexual or to have temptations towards it is not sinful in of itself, though it is a result of our corrupted state and results from our "body of death" as Paul put it.

Homosexual acts were made legal which is the cause of dispute. And in regards to Homosexual marriage being made legal, I would appose as it is against creation (Romans 1:27) which is consequently one of the reasons I try to keep the sabbath (Genesis 2:3) and affirm the traditional meaning of marriage as between a man and a woman, because of the created order.


The reason they exist is because of the Imago Dei, without it the only inherent value in people is assumed without a basis (a basis doesn't exist independent of a transcendent cause). The reason people have value is because of God and it can't be assumed that they do without Him without it being entirely arbitrary and also without a justification that's not assumed.

Again, I think that’s where the conversation ends, because I don’t think homosexuality, the acts, the identification as such, the protection of, or the acknowledgment of the rights of homosexuals is immoral. I think it’s morally neutral, neither good nor bad. It just is. I also strongly disagree that only people that acknowledge God, specifically the Christian God, have intrinsic human rights while everybody else is an outlier.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

The conversation only ends for those who are despondent enough to ignore all of the various philosophical, social and political facts that need to be taken into account on the whole.

One of those facts is that without Jesus Christ at the core of any Human Rights articulation, it carries minimal intrinsic weight and leaves little that can be promotable for full acceptance on a more universalizable scale.

Again, the conversation does end there because I don’t think any of those things are up for debate. Much like people don’t have to justify their value because of the color of their skin, their choice of religious affiliation, or their philosophies in order to demonstrate their worth or their basic human rights, homosexuals don’t either. If we start applying rights and values of people through the filter of religion, we void one of the key tenants of most democracies (freedom of religion) and set the standard that all religions can start making religiously based determinations about the rights of others. It works very well when you’re the majority because you don’t fear what it means for you, but given that in the next 50 years Christianity (especially arch-conservative Christianity) will be the minority and not the majority, it’s suddenly not going to be as much “fun” to use religion as a marker for the Intrinsic value of people.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Again, the conversation does end there because I don’t think any of those things are up for debate.

They actually are up for continuous debate and discussion, mainly because they're not settled and never have been. And this unsettled state in which the intersection of moral philosophy (Ethics), political science, social science, neuro-science, biology and religion remains means that it always will be in that state. One such aspect of this ongoing debate is that Modern Human Rights has no moral substance beyond practical human considerations, and this implies that for various mitigating reasons, no one 'has' to agree in wholistic fashion since what is claimed to be intrinsic to Human Rights isn't so clear and robust as some people like to make it out to be. The fact is, no nation does.

See as a starting point:​

​

Freeman, Michael. "The philosophical foundations of human rights." Hum. Rts. Q. 16 (1994): 491.​

​

Freeman, Michael. "The problem of secularism in human rights theory." Hum. Rts. Q. 26 (2004): 375.​

​

Ishay, Micheline. "What are human rights? Six historical controversies." Journal of Human Rights 3, no. 3 (2004): 359-371.​

Much like people don’t have to justify their value because of the color of their skin, their choice of religious affiliation, or their philosophies in order to demonstrate their worth or their basic human rights, homosexuals don’t either.

I didn't say that anyone "has" justify their worth, not even homosexuals. I believe they already have it.

However, I'm referring to the complexites which exist within issues that need support and vetting from Ontology and/or Metaphysics and issues in Axiology, not to mention Epistemology, to give full weight to various claims of human significance, as opposed to merely pushing a generalesque notion of rights that somehow emerges from what are low-level evolutionary terms.

If we start applying rights and values of people through the filter of religion, we void one of the key tenants of most democracies (freedom of religion) and set the standard that all religions can start making religiously based determinations about the rights of others.

I think you've missed what has been going on upon the wider world stage of Human Rights dialogue among nations for the last several decades since the end of World War II. You might want to get up to speed on all of that.

See as a starting point: ​

​

Ignatieff, Michael. "Human rights as politics and idolatry." In Human rights as politics and idolatry. Princeton University Press, 2011.​

​

Ignatieff, Michael. "The attack on human rights." In Human Rights, pp. 407-421. Routledge, 2017.​

​

Ishay, Micheline. The history of human rights: From ancient times to the globalization era. Univ of California Press, 2008.​

​

Hoffmann, Stefan-Ludwig, ed. Human rights in the twentieth century. Cambridge University Press, 2010.​

It works very well when you’re the majority because you don’t fear what it means for you, but given that in the next 50 years Christianity (especially arch-conservative Christianity) will be the minority and not the majority, it’s suddenly not going to be as much “fun” to use religion as a marker for the Intrinsic value of people.

Personally, I'm not one of those Christians who is particularly concerned with whether or not I'm a majority or a minority in the world or even in my own nation. My focus is other than that in Life, and as long as I'm not bullied, I'm good with allowing many other to people live how they want ------ within reason.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I also strongly disagree that only people that acknowledge God, specifically the Christian God, have intrinsic human rights while everybody else is an outlier.

I was going to let it be because you didn't want to continue but I just wanted to say that this isn't what I said. I said that there is no justification for human rights for all people outside of a transcendent source. I.E under a secular morality. Not that only Christians have human rights. That wouldn't make sense as Christians believe all humans have inherent rights because they're made in the image of God.

 

[SilverBear]

(staff edit)

People getting the moral standard wrong =/= it being a poor moral standard. The idea that the interpretation of morality is somehow indicative of the moral value of said standard is a logical non sequitur. The Bible is not pluralistic and in order to claim it as such is to claim that a moral standard (something not relative) is relative, which is incoherent.

Isn't a good standard one that can be easily understood or at least very difficult to corrupt?

I'm not claiming that it will lead to all sorts of atrocities, even though as evidenced by the bloodshed of the 20th century it does, but I'm claiming that you're unable to claim anything as good without it being arbitrary & un-athoritative because your basis on which to do so within your paradigm is assumed and requires Christian presuppositions in order to give it justification that don't exist within a secular worldview. A socially agreed upon ideal within the paradigm of Naturalism or Materialism (the thing which makes evidence, evidence in secular worldviews) is unable to be authoritative. If what is morally correct is different to each person (subjective morality) then everything is arbitrary and societal agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them.

(staff edit)

For example; the Romans who created the longest lasting empire waged warfare continuously. Something that would be seen as obscene today. If your morality is based upon practicality and what works, then a society who's economic basis is built upon slavery (The Romans) would view slavery as 'good' or 'best'. In order to call the Romans wrong for building their empire on the backs of slaves you would need a reason as to why slavery is wrong both for them and us. In which case in order to do so you would assume a moral standard (something not relative).

Yet slavery is supported biblically so you can't say slavery is wrong or immoral

Yet under a secular worldview you're forced into moral relativity which is completely incoherent with your position that homosexuality is in fact morally ok.

That doesn't make any sense

The fact that you don't understand that you're assuming the value of human life without justification or a reason as to it's existence/truth when you assume that causing harm is wrong, shows that the reasoning of believing there is a measuring stick that's used to say it is ok, when in fact the measuring stick under a secular morality is entirely arbitrary & un-authoritative - is flawed.

[Edit: phrasing & exposition]

why do you assume I am assuming anything?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Isn't a good standard one that can be easily understood or at least very difficult to corrupt?


and this is the problem of using the bible as an authoritative moral standard. what is morally correct is based on personal interoperation and that is different for each person meaning it is entirely subjective and can't be authoritative

and neither do you. you just claim your standard is authoritative but it is in the end just your personal interpretation.



Yet slavery is supported biblically so you can't say slavery is wrong or immoral


That doesn't make any sense

why do you assume I am assuming anything?

So, let me get this straight. You're an academic authority on a whole host of issues involving the Bible here? Since when?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Is that a real question?

Yes this is a sincere and real question.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Isn't a good standard one that can be easily understood or at least very difficult to corrupt?

Yes, Jesus Christ is the definitive revelation of God and His truth is understood by illiterate peasants through to the elite of the elite erudite scholars. Also yes, the method of the transmission of the text prevents corruption:

(staff edit)

You're making the mistake of thinking that because we interpret what the truth is therefore it necessarily follows that the truth is subjective. No, the truth exists independent of us whether we believe in it or not. Using inductive reasoning (which there is no justification for outside of God because we can't examine the future) I can be certain that rocks will continue to exist after I die. My belief or non belief in them does not change the fact that they exist. Just because there is subjective interpretation about morals it does not mean that morality is subjective. Disagreement on belief about what the truth (or correct morality) is =/= that truth (or morality) is subjective, if it was the case there's no point in discussing any disagreements at all as we're both "true/correct".

and neither do you. you just claim your standard is authoritative but it is in the end just your personal interpretation.

The claims of Christian Theism is that God is the source of all truth and why things are true at all, He is a being who's behaviour is subjective to Himself, He is sovereign, this is His Creation and therefore He sets the universal parameters of our behaviour. Elohim, The Source of all truth, is what allows inductive reasoning to have justification/reliability, moral claims to be facts, allows logic & reason to have a reason as to why they can be trusted or be reliable as apposed to "it's all we have" and allows for the real existence of laws of logic & mathematics and their correspondence to nature. If you're starting from a point that it is true that morals are relative then you have no reason to be arguing here at all because the behaviour of the other person is right according to them. The very act of reasoning towards any sort of moral conclusion that is 'correct' requires a non relative standard in order to be 'correct'. There is no 'right in this particular case' or 'wrong that particular case' without a universal standard for morality. Otherwise it's just interpretation drawn from feeling and can be dismissed as such and or invalidated/countered by my own personal preferences or feelings because both would be equally right due to the proposed relative nature of morals.

I suppose you also don't use this reasoning for science or your own existence? At the end of the day it's just your personal interpretation that you yourself exist or that I exist.

Yet slavery is supported biblically so you can't say slavery is wrong or immoral

The slavery in the Bible is completely and utterly different than the slavery under the Roman Empire in the example I gave. The fact that you think this is an argument betrays the fact you've never seriously examined it even once. The 'slavery' which is in essence a kind of indentured servitude due to the unique unprecedented measure in the ancient world of slaves being freed every 7 years or in the year of jubilee (the year at the end of seven cycles of shmita), allowed a people who were exposed to famines and all sorts of calamities to give their service to a master who would look after them, feed them and watch out for their safety (Leviticus 25:39). Even the forms of punishment gave inherent dignity to slaves which was nowhere else to be seen (Exodus 21:26-27). Not to mention the fact if the slave loved his master there was even a ceremony to indenture yourself for life with his house (Exodus 21:2-6). Couple this with the fact that God allowed some laws in spite of what He truly desired due to the stubbornness of Israel's hearts, Matthew 19:8, with the Imago Dei and you have justification for the abolition of slavery.

That doesn't make any sense

Yeah it does. Arguing for correct moral stances under a subjective morality is incoherent. They refute each other because if morals are subjective then they can't be correct because a particular moral stance is declared 'right' based preferences & experiences.
Whereas the very nature of a correct or right moral stance mean's that the moral is true regardless of personal experience or interpretation. Right moral stances or correct morality refutes any notion of subjective morality and vice versa, they can't co-exist, they both deny each other.

why do you assume I am assuming anything?

Because you're arguing like an Atheist, for Atheist positions, using Atheist logic, which relies upon Naturalism & Materialism in order to establish or claim truth. Within these paradigms/worldviews things like inherent value of human life or an authoritative morality don't exist. There's no justification for the presupposition of what makes something morally true or authoritative within an evolutionary framework (which is the current default view of these systems). Under an evolutionary framework you're unable to derive a should from an is.

 

[SilverBear]

So, let me get this straight. You're an academic authority on a whole host of issues involving the Bible here? Since when?

since when do you have to be to get the idea that personal interpretations are....personal?