I read the dialogue. Nom proved Fromwithin to be 100 percent accurate.

I literally just busted you for distorting other people's language, Bronto. You are 100 percent a liar.

If non believers accept that our moral values are different, why do you suppose they spend their lives demonizing Christians? Why can't they accept that Christians have as much right to their own values, as does the non believer, when not hurting others.

I suspect it's because they're inconsistent hypocrites. In my experience, most atheists who tout tolerant moral relativism are still intolerant moral absolutists in practice. It's a glaring point of incoherence in contemporary progressive thought.

There is a reason why many non believers spend their lives trying to ridicule Christians. I gave you my reason... what is your's? & Please don't repeat the lie of how Christians want to create moral laws to control non believers. This is a complete distortion of the truth, when in fact it's those on the Left making new laws, trying to force Christians to bow to their political correct beliefs.

My explanation is probably going to be pretty unsatisfying to you, because I don't share your faith in divine morality. But I presume you're asking because you're genuinely interested, so here goes:

I believe that if there is a universal and objective morality that we cannot know it, so it cannot be relevant to our lives. I'm fuzzy on my theology, but I think there are some Christians who've similarly suggested that we cannot know God's moral truth?

I believe that when people talk about morality they are really talking about their personal preferences. I suppose one could understand those preferences as either divinely inspired intuitions or willful departure from them, though that's not entirely consistent with my view here.

I believe that it's common, even unavoidable, for people to try and assert their preferences over and against those of others. What this looks like in approach and intensity can vary, but I do think that both atheists and theists engage in it.

I think that non-believers, particularly progressives, tend to exaggerate the extent to which theists do this and overlook or justify the ways in which they themselves do it. In fact, one of those justifications is by exaggerating theist participation in social coercion.

Case in point. Prohibition in the US is usually represented (often by progressives) as a Christian Protestant effort to legislate their morality onto others. I think it's undeniable that there were Christian Protestants who advocated for prohibition, and that they did so at least in part because of their religious values. But the movement also involved other concerns, including a concern with political corruption, and was supported by non-Protestants or by Protestants for extra-religious reasons.

There are no "sects" in true Christianity. There are differing Protestant denominations who might focus more on certain areas of the Bible such as with the Gift's of the spirit (Pentecostal Churches), etc.

I'm not sure what the difference is between a sect and a denomination. Do you mind clarifying this distinction for me?

These Protestant denominations most times do not disagree on the main tenants of the Bible, such as salvation being through Christ alone. They may disagree on smaller points of the Bible, when it is not clearly explained. But for the most part, we get along just fine. & Most Protestant Churches agree on the Christian moral values lifted up in the New Testament Bible.

I didn't mean to suggest that y'all don't generally get along. My concern is whether you have disagreements about what morals are part of a Christian ethics.

Even if most Protestant Churches agree on the Christian moral values, that still suggests that there are some which don't. And I'm curious what you make of them, especially as it relates to divine ethics.

Then ban me! I'm wasting my time with you anyway.