The more Godless America becomes, the more 'uncivil' it also becomes

1st of all the OP is based on "Godless"---not 'godless'--- the word 'God' being the creative designer, intelligence, and scripturally referred to as the Father of Creation. W/o 'this God' there is nothing to point to as being 'truth'--- ergo, unbiased and universal spiritual laws to civilized humanity.

 

Irrelevant to the matter of there being evidence or data having been made available. Whether you call the evidence or data "anecdotal" or not is also irrelevant to the issues that the society of that day was looking at. Under the laws of that time, only the testimony of two witnesses was sufficient for the cause.

If you desire to not take into consideration the "facts" that were known at that time, then truly you cannot be helped. Your argument is an absurd argument.

Yes! Your argument is really an absurd argument.

 

Yeah! Remember the good ol' days when a man could hang or lynch a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) just for touching a white woman?

Remember when dogs and water hoses were used on human beings, just because they wanted schooling?

Remember when child prostitution and labor was legal?

Remember when a man could beat his wife and not worry about her divorcing him or being thrown in jail?

Remember when companies treated their workers so well, that they took "care" of all their needs by forcing them to accept company script in lieu of real money?

When those same companies shot their workers just because they wanted to earn wages that they could actually live with?

 

If your object is to understand why things were done in that time in the way that they were done, then yes, you need to parse the information as it was at that time. Comparing the flavor of oranges to that of apples will not result in the same flavor determination.

Really? What species are we currently recognized as when compared to then?

Truly, you may not have reached any further stage of evolution than any other person living today.

 

If "apples and oranges" means that applying todays knowledge to information we have about the past will result in different results, you are right.
And it should.
If you think we can only look at the past through a lens that will transport us into the way of thinking employed at the time in order to understand it, you are turning your back on centuries of scholarship.
Which starts to explain a great deal.

 

oh? then you will be sure to identify a rule of absolute morality.
Last time you gave a specific anecdote, with few details. No good.
I want a rule that is absolute. Got any?

 

For 'starters, an absolute 'truth': 'Fallen man has a 'sin' (self centered/self pleasing) nature and cannot redeem himself from that nature.

Resultant of that 'truth," he therefore needs 'outside' help, aka a "Savior." Someone to 'save' himself from himself!

 

And, intentionally & forcefully taking the life of the innocent when it can be avoided is unacceptable, and violates the natural laws of humanity.

 

Well its absolutely so that some are of this belief.

 

Ok.... and if by avoiding it you allow an even greater harm? moral relativism, situation ethics?

Your god doesnt seem big on this rule himself, as in the first born of egypt etc.

 

Can you change your selfish nature...not for just a moment of weakness...but as in being 'reborn?'

Also do you believe in 'evil' and that it is the opposite of 'good?' Socrates, who reasoned out there must be a single god--not multiple gods, believed 'Everything' has an 'antithesis.' Would that be an absolute statement?

 

That one comes down to 'who is innocent' and 'who has the 'right' to that life,' as in owning it's soul. Per the scripture, "What right has the clay to question it's potter..? (King OD xlation)

 

That all comes down to not being responsive to the question.
For any try at a general principle of moral absolute, We can quite readily find exceptions, cases where one must look in shades of grey; moral relativism, situation ethics.

If there is an absolute not open to such shading, I truly would like to hear of it.

 

As an atheist, I never say GD or JC. I do say "damn" now and then... but not often. Does that make me less of a heathen than a potty-mouthed Christian?

 

It is just one perspective on why some may believe there was a global flood, over two thousand years ago.