Oliver,

you said: "the main defence during the Nuremberg Trials was, “I was just following orders”. So, we are not in agreement here."

It's the same thing. "I was just following orders" is an admission that morality is determined by the locus of power (superior officers) rather than by an objective standard.

You said: "Opinion=Judgement…"

Actually, opinion = MORAL judgment.

You said: "We have been here before, however, I iterate, the judges and the defendants had opinions."

Indeed. But note that the judges didn't say to the Nazis "Oh. You have a different opinion to us. We respect your opinion. Not guilty." The Nazis were found guilty and punnished. And Robert H Jackson, counsel for USA made it clear that this was not a case of power - the victor judging the loser - but a case of violation of a higher moral law.

Again, if you really believe what you are saying then you have no right to criticise anything or anyone.

Your view can only produce a world which is either effectively lawless or totalitarian. Do you really want to live in such a world?

Yes repeatedly asking you and Boaz to post on Slavery, reading through that slavery link and others to see what apologists like yourself regurgitate, shows that I’m not at all interested in the subject.

But it would have been a waste a time anyway you would have used the standard defence to deny that this form of slavery was as bad as is made out (even though none seem to think they could get away with it today)or to mistranslate the text.

Your response does answer a question though you are a cop out Christian fundie troll sophist/apologist on par with the creation science troll fundies, who is on the extreme end of the Christian blind spot inconsistency regarding amoral practices carried out in the Bible.

You won’t post there because you know you are on a hiding to nothing on slavery which in a absolutist moral system is unjustifiable under any circumstance.

Oliver, Kenny, Fiona and others, feeding trolls only encourages them if you want to keep Aslan as your pet resident troll by all means, I think I’ll look for some moderate Christians for any discourse, and hope they can call a spade a spade

Aslan,

The point of my question about Mark is "if" it were now excluded would you include it. This scenario provides a test of your willingness to accept new interpretations not based on a priori validation to your code. You see, you do accept the four gospels, now - without question. The hypothetical is, that if there were only three gospels, would you accept or reject the fourth gospel, you now accept?

Neo,

I see and have experienced the point you make, but, I might hang-on in there with this Mark/Gospel thing, for a while.

What Aslan does not seem to appreciate is that I am not attacking his right believe, rather, I am trying to coax him (?) to be critical of what he reads, before forming a belief. Moreover, all beliefs need to be tentative. Adopting an a priori position and remaining affixed gets us nowhere. If the word is mighter than the sword, the question mark is the word's most powerful character.

Good. We agree that there is such thing as a Locus of Power. Progress.

Some Germans would have agreed with the NAZIs and some would not. It is a matter of opinion. Nonetheless, personal opinons would have often been secreted in Hilter - fear.

In war crimes courts deliver judgements, which may or may not agree with their personal opinions of the judicial officers. They are there to interpret the law. Nonetheless, it is probable judges would hold opinions aligned to their own society, but, that is not a certaintly.

"In the Opinion of the Court", having the Locus of Power, the opinions of defendants are weighted and after deliberation a verdict and perhaps a penalty is handed down.

I don't see the existence of millions of opinions is threatening. It is respect for diversity and the apt channeling of debate that is important. Well, that's my opinion.

So you agree with me that pi is not 3 Aslan?
Yes I know NeoHuman that’s what this thread is about, but morbid curiosity leds us to keep him talking to see what foolishnesses he'll come out with next.
I wonder if Aslan shares his Gods unhealthy interest with beetles?

Fair enough Oliver, you can try but I don't think you'll get anywere.

I will say that it is the fudies who usually cop the slavery question and the moderates escape because they don't tend to get up

other peoples noses.

& in the end I don't think it is possible for a moral system to be complete and consistent anyway and I back him on abortion against some liberal Christians and my fellow atheists and humanists.

I would like though if you are going to continue on mark to find a neutral forum maybe invite some others with some qualifications. But then again even with heavy hitters these debates don't tend to get anywhere.

BTW Oliver are you a ethical relativist?