Adriana, my concept of an objective moral standard is one that is not of my own making, but rather was given to humanity via the Bible.

This IS the objective reference point by which human behaviour is judged.

The difference between me and most of my board-mates is that they want to make-up their own rules for judging human behaviour---I presume as they go along.

This is very un-PC on my part.

The glaring [I think anyway] fallacy in their argument is, that when the objective standard is rejected, the only alternative is a subjective standard. PC code-names, ammorality [essentially nothing is either moral or immoral], situational ethics which is taught in public schools as we speak, moral relativity which is just another name for the same philosophy that is essentially a perversion of Einstein's theory of relativity.

At any rate, once the objective standard is rejected in favor of the subjective, society starts down a slippery-slope of moral decay.

This PC philosophy is "enforced" through labeling anyone who doesn't subscribe to it as a "religious bigot" or "hate-monger" etc.

Not that that goes on here [at least not to a great extent], for example Tenacious and I have had many discussions in the past and he has always been tolerant of my beliefs. Unfortuantely, this is not always the case in my e-travels.

One fellow referred to me as the "anti-Christ" on another forum.

I prefer secular heretic.

Brian

• "External Realism" - adriana - June 25, 2001 - 15:36 UTC