It forbids _graven_ images as an idol to be worshipped. _"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image."_ This includes YHWH and any other god. {:o:O:}
Surprise. It wasnt written for us. We are living in the improved world consequence of that literature. I'm thankful and understand the cause-effect relation and understand it is useful to keep it. If we stop teaching the children the good teachings, generation after generation will become more violent. Yes, a lot more than today's level. How many years do you need to conduct a experiment to get conclusions? Christianity has more than 2 thousand years. How many years do you need?
You've misconstrued the opposing argument altogether. Objective morality was never rooted in a "belief in God". Objective morality is an ontological matter; not an epistemological one. Morality has no grounding in material axioms, and with an abandonment of metaphysical absolutes, then morals are inherently relative.
It forbids _graven_ images as an idol to be worshipped. _"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image."_ This includes YHWH and any other god.
{:o:O:}
Of course. But it didn't have to.
Surprise. It wasnt written for us. We are living in the improved world consequence of that literature. I'm thankful and understand the cause-effect relation and understand it is useful to keep it. If we stop teaching the children the good teachings, generation after generation will become more violent. Yes, a lot more than today's level. How many years do you need to conduct a experiment to get conclusions? Christianity has more than 2 thousand years. How many years do you need?
You've misconstrued the opposing argument altogether. Objective morality was never rooted in a "belief in God".
Objective morality is an ontological matter; not an epistemological one. Morality has no grounding in material axioms, and with an abandonment of metaphysical absolutes, then morals are inherently relative.
I don't think I have. Thanks all the same.
@philipnewey "I don't think"
Clearly.
There's no call for that. What exactly do you think the opposing argument I am attacking is?