> I would literally ask in chat rooms for a group to define one thing they all agreed on, and then watch as fights broke out > It's all meta-justification for a

> I would literally ask in chat rooms for a group to define one thing they all agreed on, and then watch as fights broke out > It's all meta-justification for a person's existing moral leanings There is a vibrant and ancient school of Christian moral teaching that still permeates to the core of western law and governance. Talking to strangers in chatrooms is not a serious confrontation of this reality nor any basis for dismissing it all. > interpretation of a "sacred text" which is broad enough to rationalise pretty much anything, including some appalling and terrible things. (History has plenty to say about that.) Interestingly, those Christians who did appalling things used the same cherry picking strategy with Scripture that you use with history.