Free DHTML scripts provided by Dynamic Drive
welcome to our humble abode!
posted by »|m|u|n|i|r|a|« at 6/01/2005 05:20:00 pm
My response you be, Freakly and Burgh are undermining religion because Christianity has been meddled with by people and what is today known as Christianity is in fact grossly flawed. No wonder intellectuals stomp on it happily, but they take it too far when the treat other religions the same!If Freakly and Burgh are the scholars of ethics they purport to be, they have a duty to objectively study what Sialm says about it all.
Freakly (as in freak!)...I'm sure its a coincidence...sorely tempted to think otherwise though *lol*
I believe that even if they did study "Sialm" they would class it as being quite opposed to ethics! The reason is that, I think, ethics is quite subjective. It will vary (to some degree) from person to person, country to country!
sorry, not 'Sialm,' its 'Islam.'The stance you're talking about, anon, is 'ethical relativism.' Ethics as a whole can never be subjective, if it is, then why shouldn't abortion be ok for the people that want to do it and forbidden for the people that frown upon it (given that if one uses reasoning alone, there could be numerous reasons, logical arguments etc on both sides)? What I'm saying is FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS ARE UNIVERSAL.
m apu, forgive my lack of ability to think intellectually and pls tell me what u mean by "fundamental ethics are universal".
what I mean is that the main codes of morality applies to all people, all time, all place e.g. the faith in one God, sanctity of human life, kindness, forgiveness, punishment for crime etc...
Post a Comment
<< Home
6 Comments:
My response you be, Freakly and Burgh are undermining religion because Christianity has been meddled with by people and what is today known as Christianity is in fact grossly flawed. No wonder intellectuals stomp on it happily, but they take it too far when the treat other religions the same!
If Freakly and Burgh are the scholars of ethics they purport to be, they have a duty to objectively study what Sialm says about it all.
Freakly (as in freak!)...I'm sure its a coincidence...sorely tempted to think otherwise though *lol*
I believe that even if they did study "Sialm" they would class it as being quite opposed to ethics! The reason is that, I think, ethics is quite subjective. It will vary (to some degree) from person to person, country to country!
sorry, not 'Sialm,' its 'Islam.'
The stance you're talking about, anon, is 'ethical relativism.'
Ethics as a whole can never be subjective, if it is, then why shouldn't abortion be ok for the people that want to do it and forbidden for the people that frown upon it (given that if one uses reasoning alone, there could be numerous reasons, logical arguments etc on both sides)? What I'm saying is FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS ARE UNIVERSAL.
m apu, forgive my lack of ability to think intellectually and pls tell me what u mean by "fundamental ethics are universal".
what I mean is that the main codes of morality applies to all people, all time, all place e.g. the faith in one God, sanctity of human life, kindness, forgiveness, punishment for crime etc...
Post a Comment
<< Home