Pants-of-dog wrote:God rewards Lot's goodness and moral standing after he offers his daughters to a rapacious mob.
God spared Lot in spite of his obvious moral failings, but that is irrelevant as this is not a case pedophilic child molestation endorsed by God; the daughters of Lot were betrothed virgins (pubescent adults) and therefore not pre-pubescent children. Hence, not child molestation.
So I take it you have no evidence for your claim then? Not surprised.
You often do this thing where you make wild and bigoted claims about Christian beliefs and are then unable to support those claims with evidence.
Pants-of-dog wrote:are you claiming that meta-ethical and normative relativism arguments cannot be based on anything objective?
I explained my claims several times, I see no reason to repeat myself further. A moral argument that is based on an objective criteria is not the same as an argument based on moral relativism, and I discussed this distinction in previous posts. You must be having trouble with reading, which is not my problem.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you seem to be ignoring my repeated requests for verification if your claim, I am going to assume that meta-ethical and normative relativism make arguments and criticisms that are based on logic, evidence, and objective facts.
I just quoted the evidence. Your choice to ignore the arguments I give are not refutations of them.
Further, you may assume what you please, but if you wish to assume that moral relativism is compatible with objective moral argumentation, then feel free to represent your position in debate against me so that I can expose it one way or the other. It will be quite easy.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. That does not follow. Why would it be contradictory?
Did you not read the quote from your own article?
Let me put in bold the point from the source.
meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.
If you claim the above in bold, you are claiming that there is no such thing as a right or wrong moral position; so then if you go and critique a position as being morally wrong, you have then engaged in a contradiction, because in doing so you are contradicting the claim of your system made in bold above.
What more fucking proof do you need? This is more obvious than the sky being blue.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why would it be a fallacy?
Because you cannot infer obligation from observation (the naturalistic fallacy); that is, there is no necessity in the observation of human behavior to imply how people
ought to behave.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why would I have to tolerate it?
Once again, the actual quoted position from your own article (which was the same one I posted even before you did) states the following; note in bold:
meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.
By definition, normative moral relativism requires such tolerance. This is from your own source.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Would it be fallacious to point out that Christianity has failed to convince everyone else that their moral code is objective.
No, that would be a descriptive claim of something observed and would not be fallacious by itself. It becomes fallacious only when you affix to it an obligatory or imperative statement (go from is to ought). When critiquing a moral system this become necessary, as you are arguing that a system's "ought" is an "ought-not" or the vice-versa.
Pants-of-dog wrote:and base this claim on the fact that morality seems to be relative to the individual and community?
If your statement is that Christianity has not convinced everyone of its moral system, and that different communities have different moral systems; that is not a fallacious remark, that is simply an observation that even I would make.
This of course is only descriptive moral relativism if you claim that people have different moral systems because moral belief appears to be subjective, it which case your modern opponents would more likely be evolutionary anthropologist rather than Christians; as that claim has more to do with the roots of human behavior, not with actual more questions (what is right and wrong).
Pants-of-dog wrote:We were never discussing my beliefs.
Actually, that is how this conversation started and was the basis of our original contention. So yes, we are discussing your beliefs and they are relevant.