>At 10:03 PM 6/30/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>The argument however is, how are the commandments to be interpreted ? Some
>>consider killing an evil abortionist doctor not murder. So is there an
>>eternal, universal and objective moral code if so many can disagree about
>>this moral code ?
>>Can there ever be an objective code which has these standards ?
>>
>>Pim
>>
>>
>>
>>JQ: --Man's disobedience towards the commandments of God does not negate
>>the
>>existence of the commandments.
>> Likewise, lieing on IRS tax forms does not eliminate the fact that
>>there is a definite tax Code that has been established as law. A murderes
>>actions does not eliminate the fact that there are laws or codes against
>>murdering.
>>
>> john queen
>>
>>
>>At 8:03 AM 6/30/97, Russell Stewart wrote:
>>>At 02:40 PM 6/26/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>Russell,
>>>>
>>>>Just a private opinion of mine:
>>>>
>>>>> Therefore making this "universal, eternal" moral code rather easy to
>>>>> manipulate. After all, one can simply define "murder" however one
>>>>> wishes. The Crusaders certainly didn't believe that they were commiting
>>>>> murder. Nor did the Inquisitors, the witch-burners, or modern-day
>>>>> "Pro-Lifers" who murder abortion doctors.
>>>>
>>>>While I am aware that a few so-called "Pro-Lifers" have murdered
>>>>abortion doctors, please don't refer to them as pro-lifers. That
>>>>is an insult to those of us who are abhored by those actions. It
>>>>wasn't the "pro-life" aspect of these people that led them to the
>>>>murders, but rather that they are not-all-there mentally.
>>>>
>>>>The vast, vast majority of us true pro-lifers would never be able
>>>>to commit such an act.
>>>
>>>I know that, but this schism just goes to emphasize once again the non-
>>>existence of a true universal, eternal moral code.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
3 + 3 = 6 (for all values of 3)
3 + 3 = 7 (never, similar to the chances of evolution)