The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: I disagree

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Apples to Oranges Fallacy (see in situ)

I disagree

Moral relativism is philosophically bankrupt. Everyone is subject to the same objective morality; if it is objectively wrong to torture infants for no other purpose than to have fun, then it is wrong for everyone regardless of their beliefs about morality. We have to reason with each other to figure out what the most moral thing to do would be. But since people vote according to their own view of morality, everyone tries to legislate their view of morality. There is no way around it. To say that legislating someones moral point of view should be illegal would itself be someone attempting to legislate their own morality. Why should the morality of Christians be barred while everyone elses is left to reign? They should have their say like everyone else. Its kind of ironic that the original post was from a Muslim page, which reminds me of sharia law. I haven't seen theocracy or genocide endorsed by conservative Christians.

I seriously doubt you have much familiarity with the Bible, or that you've read it in context, as those accusations against it hold no weight. There is also the problem of anachronism since what is viewed as slavery in the bible is not the same thing that we hear horror stories about. it was much closer to indentured service where the workers had rights and opted in unless they were in debt for some reason. The system spoken of was not endorsed by the Bible, it was an existing institution at the time, and the Bible added limits to it, and laid a foundation for disposing of it. The bible was instrumental in ending slavery in many places. For example, william wilburforce credited his christian faith with his efforts to end slavery in England.