Homophobic Trump...

[Sparko]

No.



The fact that I am providing an explanation for my answer does not translate to "dodging," Sparko. It would be very nice to have discussions with you in which you did not pepper them with personal observations/attacks. But if you insist, I'll just keep deleting them to focus on the actual argument. I leave it to you.

So now your answer...?

The dodging was you keep trying to avoid that we were talking about the God of the bible.

So assuming God is the God of the bible, if he apparently told me to do something that I knew went against something already revealed in the bible, then I would not do it because God doesn't change. I would figure that I was being deceived, either by myself or by Satan somehow.

Now if I were absolutely sure it WAS God telling me to go over and kill someone, then I would ask him why, but I would still do it, because I trust him to not to allow me to do anything evil. If it were a test like Abraham, then he would stop me. If he didn't stop me then I would believe he had a good reason, like they were terrorists getting ready to blow up something and only I could stop them.

[carpedm9587]

The dodging was you keep trying to avoid that we were talking about the God of the bible.

I actually didn't dodge that either. What you don't seem to understand, Sparko, is that I long ago rejected the existence of that being as "inconsistent with reality." So now, to accept your hypothetical, I need to try to ignore all of the ways that this "hypothetical being" is inconsistent with reality. For me, it's like someone saying to me, "let's just accept as a hypothetical that a square circle could exist." My mind resists going there, even for the purposes of the hypothetical.

So assuming God is the God of the bible, if he apparently told me to do something that I knew went against something already revealed in the bible, then I would not do it because God doesn't change. I would figure that I was being deceived, either by myself or by Satan somehow.

It's good to know you wouldn't go out and kill your neighbor. I have to admit I'm not sure what i would have done/said if you had said "yes, I would."

Now if I were absolutely sure it WAS God telling me to go over and kill someone, then I would ask him why, but I would still do it, because I trust him to not to allow me to do anything evil. If it were a test like Abraham, then he would stop me. If he didn't stop me then I would believe he had a good reason, like they were terrorists getting ready to blow up something and only I could stop them.

OK - so that kind of puts me right back where I started. Knowing that this god doesn't exist, I now find myself wondering just how dangerous you might be, since it is apparently possible that you would do this if you were somehow convinced that it was actually god and nothing interceded to stop you.

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp this is what I posted earlier:

1. All unicorns are pink.
2. Fluffy is a unicorn.
3. Therefore Fluffy is pink.

This is no more than what you are doing.

Of course - this is a basic syllogism in proper form - so it is sound. It is valid, however, only if the premises are true.

It is not a pejorative, it is what you are trying to pass off as reason.

It IS reason, Seer. I don't see how you are not seeing this.

Invent your own premises then use them in service of your predetermined conclusions.

Now you just shifted gears and did an apples-to-oranges comparison. The syllogism above is sound, but cannot be shown to be valid because the premises cannot be shown to be true. They are not subjective premises - they are (presumably) objective premises about reality. The premises about reality are only true if they align with objective reality. The conclusion about reality is only true if the premises about reality are true.

A subjective premise is true or false depending on whether or not it is true for the person who holds it. "I like pizza" is a subjective premise that is true if I do, indeed, actually like pizza. I am the only one who knows that for sure. Your inability to assess the truth of the proposition does not change the fact that it is true if I do indeed like pizza.

You start with it is "true to me" then it slides down the self-serving, self-justifying slope from there.

I start with "true to me" and then I conclude with a moral conclusion that is true to me. You appear to have a problem with that - but still no argument to show that morality is NOT relative/subjective.

And I'm not arguing about morality being subjective or not, but that moral reasoning is useless given its self-serving nature.

Again, you are claiming "useless" on one and only one basis: it does not arrive at an absolute/objective conclusion. So you still have no argument.

You are in no rational position to chide those who follow the herd.

I actually do. I have shown it multiple times now, and you've ignored it each time. Moral reasoning, as I have outlined it, creates an opportunity for rational discourse. It does not guarantee it is possible - but it IS possible in two situations:

1) When the underlying valuing was rationally/logically derived.
2) When the two people in question begin with agreed upon, common underlying valuing, whether or not it is rationally arrived at.

If neither of these hold, then rational discourse is not possible, so we resort to ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend.

"Following the herd" removes all possibility of rational discourse. The only question is "what does the herd want." In your case, that translates to "what does the book say."

[seer]

Of course - this is a basic syllogism in proper form - so it is sound. It is valid, however, only if the premises are true.

Correct.

It IS reason, Seer. I don't see how you are not seeing this.


Now you just shifted gears and did an apples-to-oranges comparison. The syllogism above is sound, but cannot be shown to be valid because the premises cannot be shown to be true. They are not subjective premises - they are (presumably) objective premises about reality. The premises about reality are only true if they align with objective reality. The conclusion about reality is only true if the premises about reality are true.

A subjective premise is true or false depending on whether or not it is true for the person who holds it. "I like pizza" is a subjective premise that is true if I do, indeed, actually like pizza. I am the only one who knows that for sure. Your inability to assess the truth of the proposition does not change the fact that it is true if I do indeed like pizza.

But that is the point Carp, these self-serving premises only lead us to what you subjectively prefer in the first place. You like pizza the Maoist likes murder. In other words you are using "logic" simply tell us what you prefer.

I actually do. I have shown it multiple times now, and you've ignored it each time. Moral reasoning, as I have outlined it, creates an opportunity for rational discourse. It does not guarantee it is possible - but it IS possible in two situations:

1) When the underlying valuing was rationally/logically derived.
2) When the two people in question begin with agreed upon, common underlying valuing, whether or not it is rationally arrived at.

If neither of these hold, then rational discourse is not possible, so we resort to ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend.

"Following the herd" removes all possibility of rational discourse. The only question is "what does the herd want." In your case, that translates to "what does the book say."

That is nonsense, all you are doing, or have done, is invent or select your premises to confirm or justify your per-existing opinion. And you are free to change those premises at will. You have yours and the Maoist's his. And you already agreed that this line of reasoning does not tell us what is moral. How on earth, as far as understanding what is moral, is that any better than following the herd? The best you can say is that you like pizza. Big whoop!

[carpedm9587]

Correct.

But that is the point Carp, these self-serving premises only lead us to what you subjectively prefer in the first place. You like pizza the Maoist likes murder. In other words you are using "logic" simply tell us what you prefer.

They MAY be simple preference. They also MAY be logically arrived at. But so what? If that's what morality is based on, then that's what morality is based on. Ignoring it or pretending that you have access to some "absolute" or "objective" morality that everyone has to adhere to does not make morality any less subjective. What you are doing is taking the words of an ancient book, which you have selected because you have a subjective preference for Christian beliefs and theology, which you likely have because you were raise in a predominantly Christian western world, and asserting that everyone else has to follow it because it's "absolute" and "objective." Your entire framework is no more or less relative/subjective than mine.

That is nonsense,

You do know that continually asserting this doesn't make it so, right?

all you are doing, or have done, is invent or select your premises to confirm or justify your per-existing opinion.

Actually, no. I value life. That is an assertion. The moral code that follows is derived from that premise. I didn't arrive at that moral code "simply because I prefer it." I arrived at it by reasoning from "valuing life." The same is true for valuing happiness, valuing liberty, valuing beauty, etc. And you are doing the same thing. That's the part you don't seem to understand. You have no argument against morality being subjective/relative - and you cannot get away from the reality that you are practicing morality subjectively and relatively.

And you are free to change those premises at will.

No. Despite all of the claims otherwise, foundational valuing does not change "at will." They are deeply embedded and usually require a paradigm shift for them to change. I cannot wil myself to stop valuing life. I cannot will myself to stop valuing happiness. You cannot will yourself to stop valuing your god. This is a technique the absolutists use to try to trivialize relative/subjective morality (all the while ignoring the fact that they are doing the very same thing).

You have yours and the Maoist's his. And you already agreed that this line of reasoning does not tell us what is moral.

It does not tell us what is "absolutely/objectively" moral, because there is no such thing. You have not been able to show that there is. You are again repeating the definition of relative/subjective, so you're objecting that green is not blue. It's still not an argument.

How on earth, as far as understanding what is moral, is that any better than following the herd?

It is better in the ways I described - which you dismiss as "nonsense" without actually offering an argument.

The best you can say is that you like pizza. Big whoop!

Perhaps to you - because you are locked into your baseless "absolute/objective" moral model. And you are locked into it despite a) not being able to show one exists, b) not being able to offer an argument against the claim that morality is relative/subjective, and c) actually exhibiting relative/subjective moral behavior in your every day life.

Talking with you is like watching someone who is busily painting their house green, all the while telling themselves, "it's blue, it's blue, it's blue."

[seer]

They MAY be simple preference. They also MAY be logically arrived at. But so what? If that's what morality is based on, then that's what morality is based on. Ignoring it or pretending that you have access to some "absolute" or "objective" morality that everyone has to adhere to does not make morality any less subjective. What you are doing is taking the words of an ancient book, which you have selected because you have a subjective preference for Christian beliefs and theology, which you likely have because you were raise in a predominantly Christian western world, and asserting that everyone else has to follow it because it's "absolute" and "objective." Your entire framework is no more or less relative/subjective than mine.



You do know that continually asserting this doesn't make it so, right?



Actually, no. I value life. That is an assertion. The moral code that follows is derived from that premise. I didn't arrive at that moral code "simply because I prefer it." I arrived at it by reasoning from "valuing life." The same is true for valuing happiness, valuing liberty, valuing beauty, etc. And you are doing the same thing. That's the part you don't seem to understand. You have no argument against morality being subjective/relative - and you cannot get away from the reality that you are practicing morality subjectively and relatively.



No. Despite all of the claims otherwise, foundational valuing does not change "at will." They are deeply embedded and usually require a paradigm shift for them to change. I cannot wil myself to stop valuing life. I cannot will myself to stop valuing happiness. You cannot will yourself to stop valuing your god. This is a technique the absolutists use to try to trivialize relative/subjective morality (all the while ignoring the fact that they are doing the very same thing).



It does not tell us what is "absolutely/objectively" moral, because there is no such thing. You have not been able to show that there is. You are again repeating the definition of relative/subjective, so you're objecting that green is not blue. It's still not an argument.



It is better in the ways I described - which you dismiss as "nonsense" without actually offering an argument.



Perhaps to you - because you are locked into your baseless "absolute/objective" moral model. And you are locked into it despite a) not being able to show one exists, b) not being able to offer an argument against the claim that morality is relative/subjective, and c) actually exhibiting relative/subjective moral behavior in your every day life.

Talking with you is like watching someone who is busily painting their house green, all the while telling themselves, "it's blue, it's blue, it's blue."

Again Carp, all you are doing is posing your personal preferences then using "reason" for a post hoc justification. "Valuing life" (whatever that means) is such a preference, one not shared by the Maoist. And why shouldn't we trivialize subjective morality since you can logically just as well reason to gulags. And that is no better that following the herd since.

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, all you are doing is posing your personal preferences then using "reason" for a post hoc justification.

Again Seer, all you are doing is denying that you are doing the same thing, posing your personal preferences for your god then using "reason" for a post hoc justification.

Wait... you're not even doing that. No reason is applied at all...just "it's in the book."

"Valuing life" (whatever that means) is such a preference, one not shared by the Maoist.

Correct. And not shared by the Christian. and "Valuing god" and "valuing the book" is not shared by the Maoist either, or the atheist. And you cannot even begin to make an argument because you're trying to convince others to accept your subjective preference with no rational argument behind it whatsoever.

And why shouldn't we trivialize subjective morality since you can logically just as well reason to gulags. And that is no better that following the herd since.

And why should we accept your assertion that your personal preference for your book is anything more than your personal preference for your book? Or that your "following the herd" is even one iota of a common sense approach to making moral decision? Why should we accept your it's int he book" defense when you tell us homosexuality is immoral? After all - you can't even defend your moral positions with one iota of rational argument. You simply assert "it is so!" And why? Well because "it's in the book," of course.

You see, Seer, when you trivialize subjective/relative morality, you trivialize yourself as well - because your belief that morality is absolute/objective doesn't make it so. Morality stays stubborn subjective/relative despite your best efforts to convince others, and yourself, otherwise.

What you're doing is the equivalent of complaining, "but, but, but... this gravity makes thing makes no sense! It's not the best way! It's ridiculous/nonsense/absurd. All the while, you are walking around the planet due to the force of gravity. I'm not trying to MAKE morality subjective/relative, Seer - I'm reporting to you that it IS relative/subjective, despite your claims to the contrary.

[Cow Poke]

[seer]

Again Seer, all you are doing is denying that you are doing the same thing, posing your personal preferences for your god then using "reason" for a post hoc justification.

Wait... you're not even doing that. No reason is applied at all...just "it's in the book."

Correct. And not shared by the Christian. and "Valuing god" and "valuing the book" is not shared by the Maoist either, or the atheist. And you cannot even begin to make an argument because you're trying to convince others to accept your subjective preference with no rational argument behind it whatsoever.



And why should we accept your assertion that your personal preference for your book is anything more than your personal preference for your book? Or that your "following the herd" is even one iota of a common sense approach to making moral decision? Why should we accept your it's int he book" defense when you tell us homosexuality is immoral? After all - you can't even defend your moral positions with one iota of rational argument. You simply assert "it is so!" And why? Well because "it's in the book," of course.

You see, Seer, when you trivialize subjective/relative morality, you trivialize yourself as well - because your belief that morality is absolute/objective doesn't make it so. Morality stays stubborn subjective/relative despite your best efforts to convince others, and yourself, otherwise.

What you're doing is the equivalent of complaining, "but, but, but... this gravity makes thing makes no sense! It's not the best way! It's ridiculous/nonsense/absurd. All the while, you are walking around the planet due to the force of gravity. I'm not trying to MAKE morality subjective/relative, Seer - I'm reporting to you that it IS relative/subjective, despite your claims to the contrary.

That is fine Carp, even if I'm in the same boat as you, you have offered nothing better. Your personal preferences with your "logical" post hoc justification only tells us what you find moral or not, as with the Maoist. Just as the herd or the book tells us what is moral or not. Just because you invent a syllogism to confirm your positions demonstrates nothing more than that you prefer pizza. Why you are blind to this post hoc, self-serving reasoning it beyond me.

[carpedm9587]

That is fine Carp, even if I'm in the same boat as you, you have offered nothing better.

There isn't anything better, Seer. Morality is what morality is.

Your personal preferences with your "logical" post hoc justification only tells us what you find moral or not, as with the Maoist.

And as with you. The only difference is that you have abandoned actually working through moral concepts and have simply adopted a "what's in the book?" moral framework.

Just as the herd or the book tells us what is moral or not.

Exactly. The difference, of course, is that I can examine, reconsider, refine, and adjust my moral framework as I learn, grow, and expand my experiences. You will be locked to what is "in the 200/3500 year-old book" until you decide to start thinking for yourself. So you will see anything in the book as "good" regardless of its actual effect, whether it harms anyone, or any other consideration. You will indiscriminately swallow it all.

Just because you invent a syllogism to confirm your positions demonstrates nothing more than that you prefer pizza. Why you are blind to this post hoc, self-serving reasoning it beyond me.

I am not blind to it, Seer - I am aware of it and embrace it. And it is not "self-serving," because like most people, I am aware of the "social contract" and how it impacts my moral framework. If my moral framework were purely self-serving, it would quickly get me in trouble. But I am able to see that and adjust, because I recognize the relative/subjective nature of morality and think my way through to moral consequences.

You simply blindly follow the book. The impact on others is irrelevant to you. The only thing that is relevant is "is it in the book?"

[Sparko]

I actually didn't dodge that either. What you don't seem to understand, Sparko, is that I long ago rejected the existence of that being as "inconsistent with reality." So now, to accept your hypothetical, I need to try to ignore all of the ways that this "hypothetical being" is inconsistent with reality. For me, it's like someone saying to me, "let's just accept as a hypothetical that a square circle could exist." My mind resists going there, even for the purposes of the hypothetical.



It's good to know you wouldn't go out and kill your neighbor. I have to admit I'm not sure what i would have done/said if you had said "yes, I would."



OK - so that kind of puts me right back where I started. Knowing that this god doesn't exist, I now find myself wondering just how dangerous you might be, since it is apparently possible that you would do this if you were somehow convinced that it was actually god and nothing interceded to stop you.

You seem to have a hard time with hypotheticals, Carp. Not sure if it is a lack of imagination, or a refusal to give up an inch in a debate.

And you don't KNOW that God doesn't exist. You don't believe he exists.

But the fact remains, one which you refuse to concede because of your lack of imagination, if the God of the bible existed, then it would be both logical and rational to live our lives and morals the way he designed us to.

Your refusal to even see that is what is irrational. It borderlines on disassociative denial.

[seer]

And as with you. The only difference is that you have abandoned actually working through moral concepts and have simply adopted a "what's in the book?" moral framework.

But so what Carp? Why do your post hoc justifications tell us what is better? You are only using self-serving premises to tell us what you believe. Instead of being in the "book", it is in your "head." Your personal opinion. Dressed up in post hoc reasoning.

Exactly. The difference, of course, is that I can examine, reconsider, refine, and adjust my moral framework as I learn, grow, and expand my experiences. You will be locked to what is "in the 200/3500 year-old book" until you decide to start thinking for yourself. So you will see anything in the book as "good" regardless of its actual effect, whether it harms anyone, or any other consideration. You will indiscriminately swallow it all.

What effect are you talking about? Harm? According to whom? And you will keep indiscriminately inventing your premises to serve your pre-conceived notions. Because they may change over times says nothing about whether your views are moral or not.

I am not blind to it, Seer - I am aware of it and embrace it. And it is not "self-serving," because like most people, I am aware of the "social contract" and how it impacts my moral framework. If my moral framework were purely self-serving, it would quickly get me in trouble. But I am able to see that and adjust, because I recognize the relative/subjective nature of morality and think my way through to moral consequences.

I'm saying that they are self-serving for justifying your moral views (whatever they may be). And you are adjusting from what to what? Moving towards the Maoist or Stalinist? Who knows, why does it matter?

You simply blindly follow the book. The impact on others is irrelevant to you. The only thing that is relevant is "is it in the book?"

Yet you consider consequences, which, as we discussed, you are ignorant of. You can not know future consequences of any of your moral position. You are shooting in the dark...

[carpedm9587]

But so what Carp?

The so what is that you have no basis for questioning your own moral framework. You cannot ask, "is this actually harming others?" You cannot ask "what would the world be like if everyone did this? (the sixth level of Kohlberg's hierarchy). You cannot get to any of that. You cannot consider context. You cannot consider extenuating circumstances. You have one metric for assessing the morality of an action: is it in the book?

Why do your post hoc justifications tell us what is better?

Green is not blue (Technique #1)

You are only using self-serving premises to tell us what you believe. Instead of being in the "book", it is in your "head." Your personal opinion. Dressed up in post hoc reasoning.

Green is not blue (Technique #1)

What effect are you talking about?

Any effect.

Harm?

That could be one of them, but you can't factor it in.

According to whom?

According to anyone. But it's irrelevant to you - you can't consider it at all. Only "is it in the book?"

And you will keep indiscriminately inventing your premises to serve your pre-conceived notions.

It's like choosing pizza topping! (Technique #3)

Because they may change over times says nothing about whether your views are moral or not.

Green is not blue (Technique #1)

I'm saying that they are self-serving for justifying your moral views (whatever they may be).

Yes - they are. Morality is relative for all of us - including you. Except not exactly for you. Your moral framework is self-serving for whoever wrote the books of the bible. And you don't even know how most of them were - or have any of their original writings.

And you are adjusting from what to what?

From a previous view to a new view.

Moving towards the Maoist or Stalinist?

Doubtful - but not impossible. And it is that possibility that seems to frighten you.

Who knows, why does it matter?

Because we all seek to sort our actions into "ought do" and "ought not do" so we can decide how to act.

Yet you consider consequences, which, as we discussed, you are ignorant of.

We consider consequences we can anticipate. No moral framework (or law) hold us responsible for consequences we cannot anticipate. And you have the same problem, Seer. You just think you don't. Your 2000-3500 years-dead men couldn't foresee the future either. But you comfort yourself by believing that a god sees all and is the force behind the writings of the old (young?) men. Yet you cannot demonstrate that this being exists, the world is replete with competing gods, and every single one of you insists that YOUR god is the actual one. And even those of you who believe in the same god cannot completely agree on what this god wants. This church says "homosexuals and same sex marriage welcome and blessed. This one says "they are sinners." That one says "god hates fags." Amazing how that looks from the outside.

You can not know future consequences of any of your moral position. You are shooting in the dark...

As are we all, my friend. As are we all. It's just that some of know it - and some of us cling to the illusion of a more "perfect" or "absolute" knowledge.

[tabibito]

On that I struggle. My respect for "free speech" runs in opposition to the right we have to happiness and freedom from persecution. At some point, as a society, we have to reach a point where we say, "that is simply not acceptable." It would be nice if it were done socially rather than legally, but some people are stubbornly insistent on their right to hate and to make the lives of others miserable. I have strongly mixed feelings about this issue. I can't say I know exactly how I feel or would proceed.

It boils down to this: One person claims that X is wrong and people should stop doing it, another claims that Y is wrong and people should stop doing it. The claim that X is wrong is declared hate speech; the claim that Y is wrong isn't. Claiming that X is wrong will be met with legal penalties, claiming that Y is wrong won't.
IMO, the legal bar in both cases should be set at the point where violence against either is engaged in or advocated, and that engagement or advocacy could reasonably be considered to begin with egregious personal insults.

And that's pretty much a good example of what I'm talking about. When people hide their bigotry and prejudice behind religion, I struggle. The same message could have been "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Jesus is Lord." But as soon as that "immorality" razor is turned on people on the basis of their membership in a group, we cross into a form of hate speech. Where does the right for religious freedom end and the right of a person not to be persecuted begin? There is a line there somewhere, and most of us simply disagree on where to put that line.

When it targets a group on the basis of their nature.

Ah right - is all hate speech wrong? Is a gay bar indulging in hate speech, or a gay magazine? Neither gives a warm welcome to heterosexual view-points and life-styles.
Or take this piece from a gay magazine:

some things are very private and they deserve to feel comfortable amongst themselves

Perish the thought though, that heterosexuals might want the same sort of respect for their own values and sensibilities. Or men for that matter - the amount of rubbish spoken by people against men's only clubs, and by people who are members of women's only health clubs at that, would lead to the conclusion that it is open season on one group, while the other is a protected species.

Yes. (Christians or Jews or Muslims believing that homosexuality is immoral is an example of hate) ... Perhaps so; but then, so too is levelling vituperation at people who hold those views.

I agree that the restrictions on some campuses have become too much. On the other hand, I think the students have a right to say, "we don't want that here." Freedom of Speech is about the government not being able to restrict what someone says on the basis of its content. It does not mean that every business and individual has to welcome any speech in any context.

That there be an example of hate speech - and leaving aside the fact that the complainants are usually a small, noisy, and violent minority in the student body - "we don't want them here" - ask any member of the LGBTQI community whether "we don't want them here" is hate speech when it is directed against them. And again, comments from that same gay magazine are pertinent:

Pride has always been about marginalized communities refusing to settle for anything less than the dignity and respect we deserve and it shall always stay that way. And

So it is - and so I choose not to associate with the gay community** - the life-style has nothing to offer them or me (in my opinion).
(** gay people is a different matter, provided that I am not subjected to overt discourtesy, and that has only happened a couple of times. In those circumstances I have disassociated on the grounds that they are offensive prats, not because of their sexual orientation.)

As for "snowflakes," every time I hear that word I cannot help but to

People are really good at creating buzz words and insults they can toss around at will. Most are devoid of any real meaning. Snowflakes is one of those, IMO.

All very tough and brave until the heat is on, then they go to water.

[seer]

The so what is that you have no basis for questioning your own moral framework. You cannot ask, "is this actually harming others?" You cannot ask "what would the world be like if everyone did this? (the sixth level of Kohlberg's hierarchy). You cannot get to any of that. You cannot consider context. You cannot consider extenuating circumstances. You have one metric for assessing the morality of an action: is it in the book?

But why would I want to question God's moral injunctions as a Christian? Really Carp, I'm sorry that your moral sense is built on ever shifting sands. But the point is, in your relative world no moral answer is more correct or valid than another. What matters is what conforms to your personal view (whatever that may be).

Green is not blue (Technique #1)



Green is not blue (Technique #1)


It's like choosing pizza topping! (Technique #3)



Green is not blue (Technique #1)

Except you are free to use terms like magical thinking and irrational concerning our position. Don't be hypocritical.

From a previous view to a new view.

Doubtful - but not impossible. And it is that possibility that seems to frighten you.

Like I said ever shifting sands.

Yes - they are. Morality is relative for all of us - including you. Except not exactly for you. Your moral framework is self-serving for whoever wrote the books of the bible. And you don't even know how most of them were - or have any of their original writings.

No, I believe that there are universal moral truths. But even if you are right so what? You decide what ethics you align with, as do I. In your world you are no more correct than me. There are no objectively right moral answers. I follow Biblical principles, you invent them as you go along. Neither of us are right or wrong.