I think Kalhoun got it, but since I don’t want to ignore a direct question, I’d say when nobody is being hurt, it’s probably not your business. I wouldn’t say it’s immoral for a woman to go back to an abusive boyfriend. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t try to stop it if I knew her. Slavery? Yeah, someone’s being hurt. Partial birth abortion? I’d say no. How does it concern you?
I deliberately didn’t try to give a way to make that decision.
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. --Leviticus 20:10
I am so proud of those who follow God’s Holy Commands!
When are you going to kill yourselves?
Will it be public? Can anyone watch this God-commanded act?
Wait a minute…
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. --Leviticus 19:20
Oh, I guess those of you who screwed your maids are off the hook!
Whew! I bet you were sweating that one!
When Kalhoun talks about morality he seems to be referring to those notions of right and wrong that are between you and you god or within yourself as opposed to those notions of right and wrong that are between you and others (ethics). I’m not sure if that is a universally agreed upon distinction between morals and ethics, but it generally works for me.
The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible is rife with errors and incorrect interpretations. It is made up of “annotations” from those who disagree with many portions of the Bible. Which is their right, even if they are wrong. Let’s not spread ignorance.
Well, the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible sometimes overstates its case in much the same way that you did your criticism of it.
What really bothers me is the underhanded way that you edited the link in duality72’s quote to point to some religious site instead of the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible site.
But it’s never this simple. You’re limiting ‘hurt’ to direct interaction between actors. In a society, dominant morality causes ‘X’ to be illegal, where ‘X’ occurs in private (gay sex, drug-taking, prostitution…etc) between third parties. Now, using your logic, ‘X’ is made legal since no one except actors are getting ‘hurt’. What will happen is that the lifting of legal restrictions has the ability to force major social/cultural changes in society (attitudes and norms, new views on consensual morality). And this would be unacceptable to old-schoolers who are forced to adapt themselves to this change. Clearly, old-schoolers having been brought up with their own notions of right and wrong, think that this new permisiveness is ‘hurting’ society, and indirectly themselves.
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
And as an outsider looking into the US at the moment, how far would someone get if they stood up and said “the Qu’ran says so!”?
[Moderator Hat ON]
Psycho Pirate, please read the SDMB FAQ, where you will see that using the quote function and altering the quote is not allowed. Do not do this again.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Thanks for all the fine view points!