re: Texas AG sued to keep a Bible quote in school. Now he’s troubled by Muslim prayers.

quote:

---

If Jesus or his message needs Dan Patrick's protection he's not much of a god.

---

Amen.

quote:

---

Indeed.

---

Both of us are providing our opinions and beliefs.

quote:

---

Not singularly.

---

Generally speaking, results can be seen, as morality is a system of judging right and wrong action, and actions have consequences which can be observed.

quote:

---

I'm aware. I also don't care.

---

And yet you continue to respond...

quote:

---

The Bible itself has been cherry-picked. You live your life as if it's absolute truth. 1+1=2.

---

You'll need to provide more clarification on what you mean by that. Are you talking about that which was written down or that which was canonized or something else?

Saying the Bible was cherry picked implies that there is more written revelation from God that was purposefully left out in order to push a particular narrative. When the Bible was officially canonized, all circulated material being passed off as inspired (by God) scripture was thoroughly examined to see if it passed the requisite tests. Texts that plainly and obviously contradicted accepted scripture were rejected. When talking about inspired text, you can't include everything that is not true for the sake of having complete contextual information. The point of scripture is to relay truth.

quote:

---

Link that

---

Westminster Larger Catechism

Question 7 includes God's immutability (not able to change)
Question 91 and following speaks to the moral law of God and what He wants from mankind

Three types of God's law
Brief overview of the "changing" law

quote:

---

Not singularly. (second time)

---

As stated previously, actions have consequences that can be felt and observed. Morality attempts to put a value on actions as "good" or "bad", or in other words, that which should be tolerated and/or promoted and that which should be rejected.

quote:

---

Cool. I still never gave that opinion.

---

If you disagree with my assessment, please feel free to articulate your disagreement. You seem to be skirting the issue by saying you didn't "say" it, when your words seem to imply it.

quote:

---

Maybe you're the one missing the point

---

It's very possible. When I thought you were not understanding me, I attempted to clarify my point. If you think I'm not understanding you, perhaps you should do the same.

quote:

---

Easy enough. I didn't

---

Apparently you are parsing words without any intent on clarifying the conversation. Perhaps you'd like to make a statement one way or the other on whether or not you believe a secularist has an objective morality? Your previous statements appear to suggest there isn't an objective moral standard.

quote:

---

Also easy. I don't care what you believe. I care how your beliefs impact this country. You can believe any nonsense you like, and I'll never care. The minute you start trying to impose that nonsense on others, I start to care.

It's still minimal. Why do I respond? It's Monday, coyotes aren't coming around, and I'm bored.

---

Like I said before, if there is no objective morality then what every moral standard eventually runs into is "might makes right", and whoever can impose their own moral standard on others "wins".

In that vein, you are making a moral judgement against me and my beliefs by saying that it's wrong for me to try to impose my "nonsense" (moral standard) on anyone else. At least, that's what you're implying by saying you start to care when that happens.

What basis do you have to make such a judgement? What makes you "right" to say that I'm "wrong" to push my standard? If you care about what standard I am promoting and disagree with it to the point of fighting back, aren't you in effect promoting your own standard as better? I believe that was the point I was making before about competing moral standards and how if all are subjective, there is no ultimate basis for judging anyone's standard.

quote:

---

Well, I didn't. I said "bad."

---

You said: "There's a lot of "bad" in this world that is brought about by "bad" people."

Again, how can you use the word "bad" in reference to people or their actions if morality is subjective? If the standard is subjective, it's in effect meaningless. To anyone but those who adhere to that standard.

If you don't really think in terms of "good" and "bad" and just using generally-accepted colloquialisms, then what do you believe in terms of acceptable and not acceptable?

quote:

---

Indeed. It's almost like we've decided these things as a society

---

Not quite, as what society accepted as good and bad 50 years ago has changed a lot. What is accepted now is different from what was accepted before. Hardly "decided", unless you want to accept that "decided" is also meaningless in this case since it can be decided to be different tomorrow.

quote:

---

Still don't care.

---

Apparently you do. Not only are you taking the time to respond (regardless of boredom or whatever else you've got going on), but you admitted that me arguing for my moral standard to be accepted by others makes you care. If you want me to admit my goal so you can admit you care, I will: I want for all humanity to accept the Christian/Biblical moral standard and I will promote that standard as much as I can.