:
: : Imagine that there are two people...Jim and Josh.
: : Jim is a Christian and believes that he is justified in eating animals because the people in the bible did it. Jim frequently indulges in meat and feels no remorse.
: : Josh is an athiest and feels that it is wrong to take the life of another living being to satisfy his own desires, therefore he is a vegetarian.
: : Who is more justified? The man who lives solely by the words of the bible? Or the man who lives by his own moral standards?: Neither one is more justified. Jim is doing what he thinks is right and so is Josh.
: But where did Josh get his moral standards? If I'm not mistaken you are insinuating that Jim's morals aren't as worthy, as they are from the Bible. Perhaps because Jim "borrowed" his morals? We all adapt our morals from something or someplace, even Josh.
The only thing I was trying to say is that we cannot say the way ONE man interprets the bible is the way things should be. In other words, I don't think that someone can use the bible to prove a point because it is interpreted so many different ways and so many things have changed since it was written. I also don't think it's right for someone to base their morals on the bible but have nothing to back them up except "the bible says so". I don't think that someone who bases their morals on a book and nothing else is really justified in what they believe.
None.
