God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
Empathy is the root of morality. Understanding the pain of another, knowing what that pain feels like, and wishing not to bring such suffering to others is where morals and ethics takes shape.
so wait, in the nazi society they are right? if morality depends on the society then the nazi's are no more right then american society right? But obviously we know consciously there are right morals because mlk jr went against his culture and we respect him for that. he knew with his conscious that racism is wrong. so clearly we cant abide by what society says, there has to be a standard we go by.
@goodbyebrov The Nazis lived in the wider community of the world, and the world judged that their moral code was detrimental and harmful. So yes, within the vacuum of Nazi society, their own rules are technically moral, but within the larger context of the world stage, they were not moral.
@TheGeneralCritic "and the world judged that their moral code was detrimental and harmful."
Absolutely! One could argue, that as social creatures, this ability to define morality as history progresses is an evolutionary process, and those that violate the mores, lose the battle of natural selection (i.e., the war).....
"gives a punishment that far exceeds the 'crime' " There is your problem - you think NOTHING of your crime or Who you have committed it against.
If threatened to kill my friend, we might land up not being friends. If I threatened to kill a local official, I would get arrested and find myself with a restraining order. If I threatened to kill the President of the Queen of England, I would be arrested and find myself in jail for a very long time.
@ruleofthespirit I believe every human being has a equal moral worth, so I reject the idea that it depends on 'who' you kill. The legal system reflects this. The punishment would be the same if you threatened to kill a officer or your friend.
If god exists he is perfectly able to defend himself from any threat, so the punishment should be less severe not more. Also you are saying that god is 'better' than any human and I reject this concept. His power does not make him better than me or you.
@brandisify Thats untrue. A moral person who looks after his family and his community is more likely to get favours from his community, to help him and his family survive long and fruitfully.
His children in a healthy society where we help each other out is more likely to live a long life and have their own children.... meaning the genes are passed on.
Evolution explains morality perfectly, and is the only good explanation we have.
God concept was created 6000 years ago by men in Mesopotamia. Everything else is bullshit. Morality (dont kill, etc) was there before, and god is only a super cop, nothing else. He can read in your mind. waouh! Super super cop!!
@NFL9475 You are close. Humans were created about 6000 years ago.
Mesopatamia came later.
Noahs son founded Sumeria.
Yes you are correct about the morals.......They were there before, because the first humans were created with morals. We all have morals given from God.
@brandisify ahahaha. If you think that men appear on earth only 6000 years ago, it's your problem, not mine. In civilized aeras like Europe, nobody believe in that crap, even the religious people! We only believe in reason. The present of Europe and the future of the world is secular. Gods and religions are only like childhood diseases for mankind.
@brandisify If the universe was made 6000 years ago why is it we can see stars that are more than 6000 light years away? The light shouldnt have reached the earth yet?
Or did god just speed up the speed of light, or just magicked the light to appear on Earth?
I cant see around this problem for your 6000 year old Earth theory.
Also you can count the tree rings of some trees that are older than 6000 years old. Again how do you explain this?
@markgg1In 1982, Dr. Barry Setterfield, an Australian astronomer, made an amazing discovery that he first presented at the 1983 National Creation Conference. Dr. Setterfield tabulated all the measurements of the speed of light since 1675. The computer-generated curve showed that the speed of light was slowing at an exponential rate. Extrapolating back to 4082 BC, the approximate time of creation of the earth, the speed of light was 107 – 1011 times its present velocity. ......continued
@ruleofthespirit On Speed of Light. GPS satellites and computers absolutely require that the speed of light is a constant or they would not work. GPS works by measuring how long it takes the signal to bounce of your car and back into space.
But this is irrelevant. Even if you proved this to be true, it does not prove christianity.
Also, I know a little bit about this... Sutterfields own data disproved his theory, which is just brilliant irony.
@markgg1 continued....Immediately, the scientific community set out to discredit Dr. Setterfield's report, only to verify that he was indeed correct to an extremely high statistical probability. No one could explain this exponential decay.
I can absolutely prove that theists don't take their moral code only from their God.
Christians/etc, when you think about something like rape, do you only think it's wrong because you think God says its wrong, or can you come up with intelligent, logical reasons for why rape is that has NOTHING to do with "Because God says so" or even "well I just feel it in my heart, so God must've put a moral code there".
No, they come up with the same reasons I do for why it's wrong. No God needed.
I think the key point about Christianity is that 'morality' is importan but in no way in and of itself enough, what really matters is grace through faith in christ, as if the impulse to faith is intrinsically different to the impulse to do the right thing; I suppose it would be if that faith was manifest in doing the wrong thing i.e. society found it unacceptable and gave it short shrift... Christianity relies on the convenient incidental that people of faith tend to by happy and do good.
there cannot be an absolute moral truth in an atheistic world view, its completely subjective like an aesthetic. atheists cant have it both ways, there is no gold standard, if you will, for morality if there is not an anchor in some sort of transcendence
If a judge, in order to be seen as a loving christian sort of guy, frees a murderer despite the evidence of his crime being evident - would you consider the judge
A) just
B) unjust
If a judge, rightly and justly, using the clear evidence before him applies the law and sentences a murderer to prison - would you consider him
A) Just
B) unloving - "a sadistic bastard" who loves to send people to prison where the will suffer
In both cases the judges have clear evidence of this persons culpability. So its not an issue of innocence or not but how the judge sentences him (or not) and why.
Well I am not a judge nor a lawyer, so I would not know a a punishment that fits the crime by the law. you should call a real lawyer for that
But the one that goes by the evidence is prolly the best judge, since we do have to be fair even tho it may let criminal run free.. but the point is to prove it to the judge..
Tho I am more concerned about making a world where criminality is not worth it. Because the system we use is not infalible
I actually checked with a lawyer. He says that a judge, after reviewing the evidence (and it being absolutely clear that this guys is guilty) will use the law to determine a sentence. Its not down to him personally, so its not an emotional one of hatred towards the criminal, but limited to the confines of the crime, what the law says about committing such a crime and what the law determines the sentence to be. To attack the judge for applying this sentence is simply unreasonable and foolishness.
@ruleofthespirit Yes but the legal system is a system created by people.
God makes the law, and also judges on the law, and punishes. He interprets the law his own way. This is the hallmarks of a fascist leader.
We all agree no country should be governed like this, so why does god get to do it?
If god exists (which Im relieved to see it is likely he doesn't) than god is a fascist. His punishments are unnecessary. They cannot rehabilitate the person as they are in hell for eternity.
@markgg1 "and its eternal so no chance for forgiveness."
We in society give prison sentences of life without parole to those deserving it. Remember its the same system that provides justice for all. We cannot say, we like this bit of justice but not that one.
God says that when you break His laws or do not live up to His standard of living, you commit offences so great against Him, that eternity in hell is the only JUST and RIGHT sentence for you in response to your crimes against Him.
@ruleofthespirit But the people who get a life sentence have done a horrific crime and deserve to be punished for the safety of society.
God is punishing people for merely thinking about the universe in a different way to others and not judging us by our actions.
In human society we reject the idea of punishing people for Orwellian style Thought Crimes. We have fought wars against states that do punish you for your thoughts like Stalin and Hitler.
@markgg1 "But the people who get a life sentence have done a horrific crime and deserve to be punished for the safety of society."
You think your crimes do not warrant such sentences? That is where the term "self righteous" comes from. You have set a standard that you approve of and judge yourself by. God says, you are subject to His laws and His standards and by His standards you have committed "horrible" crimes and to keep Heaven safe from your corruption, He has prepared His prison for you
@ruleofthespirit We have discussed this before I think.. but yes ultimately I do have self righteousness. I believe I can differentiate right or wrong independant of any external sources, gods included. My morality fits in line with the healthiest human societies in terms of wealth, health, crime etc. My system works. Democracy, freedom, rule of law. These are all at odds with the concept of the christian god.
He is the dictator who creates the law and judges, and sentences on it.
@markgg1 " My morality fits in line with the healthiest human societies in terms of wealth, health, crime etc. My system works. Democracy, freedom, rule of law. These are all at odds with the concept of the christian god"
Can I ask you, where did you get your intersting information about God from? Its not from the Bible, your comments clearly illustrate that.
Tell me, what would be the perfect idea or type of God that would suit you to the point you would say yes and amen to?
The reason I raise this is that the Bible speaks of God being a judge and that mankind will be judged by Him. The popular misconception is that He has anger issues, foaming at the mouth and throwing everyone into hell for the slightest infraction and being pleased about it. I see a lot of videos here of declaring God in such a light and calling Him immoral. I would agree with them IF he was like that. But when reading the Bible, I discovered that He is just in all His ways. like a good judge
He simply spells out the law, asks us to follow it and if we break it , he will apply a sentence against it. Its really that simple so i struggle to understand the level of animosity that is directed at Him. But if i look at it in the light of the criminal resenting the courts for having the power and the will to enforce the law, because they constantly and willfully broke it, then their attitude makes sense. Saying i dont believe Him or I need evidence first is a smokescreen to hide their guilt
well I dont belive in you God tho, and i have have nothing to hide. If you have the guts to even suggest that I hide myself because of my wrong doings then this convosation is over, i am not here to be offended. So if you get that bias out of the convo we can continue, because it is a strawman.
then its up to the two of us discussing Bible verses and see if the actions are just... but why even go there, we dont even know if that book is correct .
I have no intention of trying to insult you. What I am doing is speaking from experiences of myself and others who also beleive today how we dealt with Christians who were sharing the gospel with us and what was really going on in our hearts and minds which we didnt want the christian to know at the time.
Its quite common for human beings to think they are basically good or when they have done something wrong to minimise it or blame someone else or get offended by it.
@ruleofthespirit And to make matters less fair, god knows before hand who will break the law, he also leaves no evidence of his existance, and made humans who are likely to break the laws, as he programmed into us anger, lust etc...
It is so unfair I cannot see how any moral sensible person can worship this system.
It is the most unjust thing I can think off. Worse even than Hitler because Hitler can only inflict temporary punishment on you. God's punishment is eternal.
@markgg1 "And to make matters less fair, god knows before hand who will break the law"
Exactly. The Bible shows us that ALL have sinned, even you and I. The purpose of the law is to show you by how much you fall short of His standards and how impossible it is for you to live by His standards. God's ruling is that He cannot entertain any sin because He is Holy and unless you are righteous EXACTLY as He is, Heaven is a closed door to you.
Maybe now you may be ready to hear some good news.
@ruleofthespirit Why have I sinned? Just because god says I am. I am not responsible for Adam and Eve, or anyone else in history. I am responsible for me and my own actions.
How is it right that I am tarnished with a brush of the crimes of people that lived before me, and than I am judged as an individual for the srimes of others.
I am presumed guilty. Again human society rejects this form of justice as wrong. We presume innocence until proven guilty.
@markgg1 "God's system of justice is deeply wrong"
Really?
How many lies have you told?
How many times have you looked at a woman with lust?
How many times have you used His name as a swear word?
Its also not just what you do wrong but how you have not lived to a standard He commands you to: To love the Lord your God with all your heart , all your soul and all your mind and to love your neighbour as yourself"
If you want Him to be just then He would have to rightly judge and condemn you
@ruleofthespirit I look at my girlfriend with lust every day, and so what? Lust is part of a healthy relationship between a man and a woman. Its what increases our closeness and will maybe even produce a new human being one day.
If you are married are you seriously telling me you do not lust after your wife?
Again, this is where gods laws are just unworkable. If god made us, I presume he programmed the lust into us and than punishes us for acting on our biology? THis makes no sense
@markgg1 "I look at my girlfriend with lust every day, and so what? Lust is part of a healthy relationship between a man and a woman."
Jesus was answering those about adultery. Their thinking was that if they looked at other women and imagined being with them, (pornography is a good example) but did not physically follow it through then they were not guilty of adultery. But Jesus said that God sees what goes on inside a person as well as the outside and considers all when making judgements.
@markgg1 "I look at my girlfriend with lust every day, and so what? Lust is part of a healthy relationship between a man and a woman."
By the way, ever heard of fornication? Its means engaging in sexual intercourse outside of marriage. You brag to me about it to justify your lust being unaware that you are holding your hands up to another crime aginst God.
Fish swim in water, even ingesting i,t without realising they are getting wet. Humans swim in sin, not realising they are covered in it.
@markgg1 "Just because god says I am. I am not responsible for Adam and Eve, or anyone else in history. I am responsible for me and my own actions."
You are correct. You are not responsible for their sins but will be for yours. The problem you fail to see is that you were born into a corrupt family tree. Consider an apple growing on a corrupted tree. The fruit by default will be corrupted. Sin is evidence of this. You know when you sin because your conscience tells you, called guilt.
@ruleofthespirit You didn't address an important pointWhy am I punished individually for the sins of others
How can this be justified Any moral person can see this is not fair. you cant compare gods punishments to law. It assumes innocence until shown you are guilty gives a sentence to try to deter you from doing it again.
God gives a punishment you cannot learn fromYou cant go from hell to heaven even if you are sorry for the thought crime you committed;infinite punishment for a finite crime
@markgg1 ". It assumes innocence until shown you are guilty gives a sentence to try to deter you from doing it again."
God is completely fair with you. He has given you a conscience so you know when you do wrong. He has given you His Word, the Bible, full of instructions how to live and warnings of what will happen if you dont. He warns you that you have a day in court with Him to give an account to Him for everything. Once your guilt has been exposed you will be justly sentenced to hell.
Are you innocent? Maybe by your standards but not buy God's and its His standards you need to get to grips with.
Only a criminal objects to laws and calls them unfair. Why? Because they want to live as if they are not subject to any laws. How often is it taught that nobody is above the law? Even those who rule civilised countries are subject to its laws. What dont you like about God's law that make you object to them so vehemently? You prefer independence?
@ruleofthespirit Im about to go off but I will assume the good news is the loophole that god set up called Jesus Christ. I am told I must worship Jesus to escape infinate punishment.
If Christianity were proven to be true I would be one overnight. Even I am not that brave as to be able to take the punishment that awaits me. I would be scared into loving this being, in the exact same way that Winston Smith is forced to love Big Brother in 1984. U must love him or be sent to room 101 (hell)
@markgg1 "I am told I must worship Jesus to escape infinate punishment." You really have a warped view of Christianity. I wonder who taught you to think that way?
IF I went to my doctor and he kept babbling on all about the properties of some new wonder drug, I would be bored witless in 5 minutes and will keep looking at my watch. But if the doctor told me that he had discovered that I had cancer and I would be dead in 6 weeks but this wonder drug can cure me, would I still be bored? No!
@markgg1 Jesus came to save you. He is the cure for your sin. He paid the punishment for your sin so that if you accept Him, God will forgive you every one of your sins and will cancel the debt of justice you owe Him and you will be free to go. Its not some "grovelling worship" we are talking about here but its gratitiude for what Jesus has aved you from.
Any fireman will tell you of the immense gratitude the people they save show them because the people know what they are saved from.
@ruleofthespirit I didn't ask for Jesus help. I have done no wrong, so I reject the notion am steeped in sin. I reject gods legitimacy over my life. He has no right to judge me or you.
Its wrong to judge a person by their thoughts. Its the actions that are important.
And exactly what sacrifice did god make? He sacrifices his own body. Cant he just make another one?
@markgg1 "Its wrong to judge a person by their thoughts. Its the actions that are important."
How wrong can you be. Without the initial thoughts on any subject there is no motivation for what we go and do. Hitler didnt start the Nazi party by accident, men havent raped women by accident, people who try to make lots of money by all sorts of means because of greed or being envious of those who have more than they do, people lie because they want to avoid being seen in a bad light etc etc
@markgg1 "And exactly what sacrifice did god make? He sacrifices his own body."
I can see why you think that because your understanding of the matter is incomplete.
Jesus is God in the flesh but He is also a person, one of three, Father , Son and Holy Spirit. I see you struggle to understand that concept so: watch?v=piky0PMQlBI
But your problem is the same as a two dimensional being struggling to comprehend a three or multi dimensional being so:
@markgg1 "I didn't ask for Jesus help. I have done no wrong, so I reject the notion am steeped in sin"
Jesus says we are blind or have been blinded. You assume you can see and understand everything perfectly well but in reality your perpective of matters is limited.
God said He created you but you have declared that you "reject gods legitimacy over my life". Now that is matter of choice so when you enter hell, you cannot blame God for that because it is your own decision - to reject Him.
@markgg1 " as he programmed into us anger, lust etc.."Now that statement is self-serving. It is designed to create an excuse for the things you know you have done wrong , the excuse to pass the buck, to blame God.
People ridicule those who claim "the devil made me do it".
God does not program you to sin. God created us perfectly but our sinful nature is a corrupted version of what was initially designed. Like a program that has a virus. God has a way to deal with that virus and restore you.
@ruleofthespirit But most modern moral people agree that a punishment should fit a crime.
If god is giving people eternal suffering for thinking a certain way based on evidence, than the punishment is infinitely disproportionate to the crime, meaning god is a tyrant. I can not conclude anything else.
Gods makes laws that are very difficult to adhere to, if not impossible. Don't eat shellfish, don't be gay, don't work on Sundays, don't kill (what about the enemy soldier).
THe next problem is there is no evidence of these laws even being true.
ANd than god gives a punishment that far exceeds the 'crime' - and its eternal so no chance for forgiveness.
This is not the work of a just entity. I reject the form of Justice. I abhor it.
Even Martin Luther, who started Protestant reformation (which led to all the new branches of Christianity there are today) was for slavery. Which just goes to show that even though a person has ONE good idea, doesn't mean they're all good.
When society doesn't think critically and takes laws for granted, that's when it's morality deficient.
No. I mean the millions of unborn children that we have killed simply because they are not loved or wanted. And if you read the bible you would understand the hebrew word is alien and they were to treat them the same as their children. Sounds like a good standard to me. How about you? You ok with killing children just because they are not wanted or it's not the right time to have them???
I have read the Bible, several times. Not in Hebrew, in English. If the Bible is talking about aliens, why doesn't it say that? I've never seen a copy of the Bible where "slaves" was translated to "aliens". Anyway, it talks about owning people and the amount to pay for a person. That is the definition of slavery.
What about the bits about stoning unruly children to death? No mis-translation there.
And yes, I am OK with abortion. I think prevention is a better idea, though. Like condoms.
Look up Hebrew words and see what there meaning is. Many times they are called aliens or gentiles. What do you call it when someone says how much they make a year? What is that persons net worth? Are you not in debt to the bank if you owe them your mortgage? The difference is back then if you owed someone you had to work off your debt. People not just in this time frame believed it was the best answer. Instead today we just go BK and the debt is not paid. I believe we are seeing how that worked.
I understand the concept of owing someone money, but the Bible condones beating your slaves, and gives specific guidelines on how much you are allowed to beat them. That is incredibly immoral, no matter whether they're "gentiles" or whatever excuse you want to make.
You didn't answer my other question. There's no mistranslation in Deut 21:18-21. It clearly states that we should stone rebellious children to death. Do you think this is acceptable moral behaviour?
Read on my friend and let me know how old you think this drunk child is. And review what must be done for this man to be stoned. I tell you the truth when I say they had three to four process that protected the moral but did not protect the sinner. If I qutoed Dawkins saying I would believe in God but left it there you would say read on and I the truth is Dawkins said he would believe in God if he saw proof of him. So I ask you quote the rest of the chapter before you throw these stones of yours
If a person has a stubborn, rebellious son who pays no attention to his father or mother, and they discipline him to no avail, his father and mother must seize him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his city. They must declare to the elders of his city, Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say he is a glutton and drunkard. Then all the men of his city must stone him to death.
profligate (King James ) What does the word mean. So is this a Child? Read on through Deut many examples of getting rid of the evil in your town. Kind of like we do with our criminals today. It is easy to point a finger at someone just remember three more are pointing back at you when you do.
Secondly, where in the world are you from, where you stone criminals to death in the 21st Century?
Thirdly, I'm not claiming to be an absolute source of perfect morals. Your book, however, is. So when I'm pointing out the disgustingly immoral acts that are promoted in your book of 'perfect' morals, your trite finger-pointing retort is meaningless.
You still did not answer the question what does profligate mean? In your country what is the process if someone does something extremely wrong? Be good or I will give you a timeout or a spanking is a tool used today. Show me where one child was stoned... Your problem is you don't admit that there is a right or wrong. There is an absolute. Se my video "Morality without God"
Profligate means extravagant, wasteful, filled with vice etc.
In my country, we don't kill people for their crimes, no matter what their crimes may be.
The fact that the law isn't recorded as being used doesn't matter. It just shows that even the people of the time could tell that it wasn't the correct way to behave. The law is still in there.
I do admit that there is right and wrong.
Stoning children is wrong. Slavery is wrong.
Sexism is wrong. God promotes all these in the bible.
"Profligate" adjective 1. utterly and shamelessly immoral or dissipated; thoroughly dissolute.
2. recklessly prodigal or extravagant.
So was this drunk immoral reckless dissolute person a child? Please answer.. Was this law enforced? Please answer... God says if we reject him we will spend an eternity seperated from him in Hell. Has that happened to you yet no. But yet that is a promise from God. So the drunk reckless immoral man could turn back to God just like you can. Sounds fair.
As Matt says in the video, morality has evolved alongside us. As a social species, certain actions (like murder or theft) are detrimental to the survival chances of the social group as a whole, and so they become unacceptable. Most of them boil down to the idea of treating other people the way you want to be treated (which Jesus actually got right in Luke 6:31, although he was by no means the first). From that idea, justuce, freedom and human dignity naturally arise.
@almightybob101 " From that idea, justuce, freedom and human dignity naturally arise"
Only if people are committed to it.
What happens to those who disagree with your idea of freedom , justice and human dignity? Maybe they have a different idea.
Are they not free to express their ideas on these matters too or do only your matter?
Keep in mind, if everything as you say , "evolved" it means it came from nowhere, then who decides what the rules of freedom justice and human dignity is?
They are free to express them, yes. We have an ongoing process for reviewing existing laws and developing new laws. It happens all the time. Those who disagree with the status quo can get involved in that process.
"Evolved" does not mean "came from nowhere".
And we decide what the rules are, as a society.
We can observe many of these same social norms appearing in other highly social species of animals. Our morals are not unique to homo sapiens.
@almightybob101 "And we decide what the rules are, as a society."
If society determined that theft was ok and murder a minor indiscretion, would you go along with it for societies sake or would you object to it. If so, why?
Btw when you refer to animals and humans as if they are the same creatures of habit please note ths point: Animals just eat but its humans that cook.
Also, only humans have a sense of justice, of a right and wrong, far more than simple herd mentality to survive.
I would object to it, because I do not want to be murdered, or have my posessions stolen. Nor do I want my family and friends to be murdered, or their posessions stolen.
What is that point supposed to mean? It has nothing to do with morality.
How can you possibly know what an animal is thinking? The only way we can know is based on actions, and we have evidence of animals performing selfless acts which suggest greater impulses than the selfish desire to individually survive.
But who is it that determines what morality is? You have told me that justice morality and human dignity is evolved by society. Would you agree with society's if it determines that theft and murder is in the best interest for the survival of society?
In other words how do you know that such actions are really that wrong? Again, what basis do you hang on to the fact that murder and theft remains wrong, even if society says it ok?
Humans determine what morality is. Some societies have accepted behaviour like murder. Those societies failed, because those behaviours are detrimental to the societies. Our civilisation thrived, because we did not tolerate that.
If everyone suddenly decided that murder and theft were OK in the society I live in, I would seek to reverse any laws that allowed it, and if I could not, I would leave that society.
@almightybob101 "If everyone suddenly decided that murder and theft were OK in the society I live in, I would seek to reverse any laws that allowed it, and if I could not, I would leave that society."
I know you would but why? What is it about such actions that inside you, you strongly determine , as shown in your comment, that society "should not " act in that way or that such actions "ought not " to be allowed that you would" seek to reverse any laws that allowed it"?
I already explained this. I do not want to be murdered, or have my posessions stolen. Therefore I do not want to live in a society where such behaviour is accepted. I want to live with other people who feel the same way. Thus a society where murder and theft are unacceptable is born.
Have you watched the video we're commenting on? Matt talks about this from 1:42 to 2:30.
@almightybob101 "Therefore I do not want to live in a society where such behaviour is accepted. I want to live with other people who feel the same way. "
So are you saying that allthough society evolves all morality, justice and human dignity, it is not always right and if so you would determine it healthy to your own sense of justice, morality and human dignity to seperate yourself from them and live your own? If the other society is dominant is it still moral if it destroys yours to survive?
Yes, society is not always right. On a most basic level, a society that allows excessive antisocial behaviour, like rampant murder, will die out. It cannot sustain itself.
I would separate myself from that society, yes, but I didn't say I would live alone. As I just said, I would seek others who did share my beliefs. Humans are a social species, we survive better together.
@almightybob101 "a society that allows excessive antisocial behaviour, like rampant murder, will die out. It cannot sustain itself"
You are correct.
If I may bring up the Bible here on this occasion, would you not agree that "Thou shall not kill" to be a wise commandment designed to instruct a society how to behave to counteract the awful destruction you have pointed out that will destroy any chance of its survival?
No. "Thou shalt not kill" is an absolute statement. My morals are not so simple. I believe there are some cases in which killing is acceptable, as does the society I live in. For example, killing in self-defence.
That is a survival tactic and even the Bible does not judge a person on that .
I am talking about the alienation and eradication of peoples for the sakle of a society determining to live a certain way, which ses these others as an impediment to its progress. Look back at the 20th century. Do you think those societies were immoral in their actions? If so, does not that moral line up with the commandment "Thou shall not kill?"
Where does Jesus say it is OK to kill in self-defence? Doesn't he in fact say the exact opposite in Matthew 5:38-39?
It seems like you're referring to genocide here. Which is obviously not acceptable by my morals or by the 5th Commandment.
Yes, I think the eradication of a group of people is immoral, because my logic still applies to that situation - I do not want to be eradicated, and I extend that desire to others.
@almightybob101 " Where does it say it is ok" The Bible gives numerous explanations on how to deal with someone who is threatening your life ie intent on murdering you.
In Ecclesiastes 3 we are taught that there is a time for everything - even killing. In the Book of Esther we are told of one man’s obsession to destroy the Jews. Haman was so obsessed with his hatred of Mordecai that he deceived the king into signing a death sentence for all Jews (Esther 3:13). continued ...
@almightybob101 .......Over the next few chapters we see the progression of Haman’s downfall because of his hatred, but Esther 8:11-12 has a very interesting decree. When the king finally sees the folly of the law he signed for Haman, he signs another law giving the Jews the right to defend their lives by killing anyone who is trying to murder them
@almightybob101 In the Old Testament there was a situation which allowed for a "blood avenger" (Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 19, Joshua 20). In essence, if your kin were slain by another person, the next of kin had the right to take the slayers’ life. If it was an accidental killing the slayer could flee to a city of refuge and be safe from the avenger. If it was a premeditated killing, there was no refuge for the murderer.
Regarding killing in self-defence: I notice every example you gave was from the OT. It is my understanding that Jesus made a new covenant, and gave new laws which supercede the many hundreds of old laws in the OT (I notice you say nothing to rebut Jesus' words that I quoted). Is that true or false?
If the OT laws regarding killing in self-defence still apply, then all the others logically must too. So I hope you never eat bacon, or wear clothes woven of several fabrics.
@almightybob101 I hear many who cry why they should pay for the sins of Adam and Eve. That its unfair. But looking at your comments I see the very same sin of Adam and Eve, evidence that their crime has passed down generations, the desire to be like God, to be their own god, not needing to depend or rely on the real God who made everything they enjoy and Who gave them their life.
This same God, as any king would deal with any rebel, will capture them soon and justly convict and imprison them.
@almightybob101 Legal recourse. In John 7:1 we are told that the Jews sought to murder Jesus. Then in verse 19 Jesus confronts those who would do this publicly thus exposing them and making it impossible for murder to occur without forfeiting their own lives! The Apostle Paul in the book of Acts had his life threatened many times. One alternative he used simply to leave town (Acts 9).
Another time Paul used the legal system to protect him (Acts 21 and following). Such Scriptures would indicate that restraining orders are perfectly legitimate ways of controlling people who seek to do you harm.
Its all about using every means at your disposal NOT to kill anyone.
Yet you have no such contraints, even against the most defenseless of human life.
You're avoiding the question. You said killing in self-defence is OK. Jesus said "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Why do you think killing in self-defence is OK, when Jesus clearly instructs you not to?
You're creating your own morals and rejecting Jesus' instructions just as much as I am. So I'll see you in hell :)
@almightybob101 Such comments show your ingnorance of biblical matters. You tend to view in in a two dimensional view. Regarding turning the other cheek does not mean lie down and be murdered without a fight but how to handle those who mistreat or hate you for your Christian beliefs.
In conflicts between men where the motive is NOT to punish us for our Christian beliefs, but to steal from us, to hurt us or those we would protect, as in bullying, an act of war etc., that is a different matter.
Ah, so now the phrase "Do not resist an evil person" means "resist an evil person". Funny how you just interpret Jesus' specific words to mean whatever you want.
It's a clear instruction. The WHOLE passage is about not fighting back. Turn the other cheek. When you are sued for your tunic, give your cloak too.
Obviously this is an insane command, and you think so too. So you reinterpret it as meaning something other than what it says, so you don't have to worry about hypocrisy.
@almightybob101 In the Scriptures God gives us a basic commandment against the taking of human life. For centuries we have been taught the King James translation of the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17). In our language the word "kill" simply means to take a life." It does not differentiate between premeditated killing, accidental killing, killing in war, or killing in self-defense.
@almightybob101 The word God used for "kill" is much more discriminate as it means the deliberate act of murder - taking a human life without justification. In the New Testament we are told in Romans 13 that the government has the right to terminate a human life under justifiable conditions, but does not have the right to take a life where there is no justification. Can one take a human life to protect his own life? This is a justifiable reason for terminating a life.
All this is irrelevant. JESUS COMMANDS YOU NOT TO RESIST AN EVIL PERSON.
If you kill to protect your own life, you are NOT "turning the other cheek" as Jesus commanded. You are resisting an evil person. You are going against Jesus' commands, forming your own morals because you don't like the one Jesus gave you, and therefore will be joining me in hell.
@almightybob101 However, we need to understand that such killing has other alternatives at times. I have already discussed David, Paul ,Jesus , Mordecai and Haman .Refer back at my earlier comments. When Jesus spoke of turning the cheek, it was to teach us to learn a different way of handling difficult matters. Today in courts we use mediation to resolve issues rather than using the law as a hammer but in self defence, it is a completely justifiable response to an immediate threat to your life.
How do you know that is what Jesus was trying to say? All we have are the words written in the Bible, and his exact, literal words, were "do not resist an evil person".
Your attempts to reinterpret Jesus' words to fit your own morals make me laugh. His teaching is clear, you disagree with it just like I do, but you warp the words of the Bible to fit your own morals whereas I have the honesty to say "no, Jesus was wrong".
@almightybob101 "Your attempts to reinterpret Jesus' words to fit your own morals make me laugh. "
What you mean is, it clashes with your interpretation. But your interpretation does not marry up with reality but seeks to fit your own agenda. There is a saying, to the jaundiced eye, everything is yellow.
Every Christian know that what I described is correct, its not talking of flight or fight scenarios but rather advice how to handle aggresive people who mean you no good in a better way
@almightybob101 "How do you know that is what Jesus was trying to say?"
That is easy. When a person learns to study the Bible and not just dips in and out of it, you discover that there are consistencies of actions that marry up with what is taught elsewhere. Once you learn to spot them, it builds a more complete and substantive picture. The Bible is pretty consistent on issues, so your style of picking bits out immediately highlights your lack of real knowledge what the Bible really teaches.
I have extensively explained it in my other posts. I am not going to repeat it again. You clearly are not paying attention to what I am saying, because you keep repeating things that I have already explained are incorrect - e.g. that "evolved" means "came from nothing", or that I said a foetus was non-human when I actually said I was not a person.
There's no point in me trying to explain to someone who is not going to take the time to read the answer, so we are done here.
@almightybob101 I still say it changes from one form to another but it had to have a beginning, would you not agree. Even Hawkins and Dawkins agree on that.
They say it all came from nothing in one big bang. So what decided we need morals, justice, respecting human dignity - there is no evidence of it in nature , its only found in human beings, not even monkeys and apes for that matter.
BTW still waiting for your explanation why you think Jesus is wrong regarding turning the other cheek.
Evolution is about life changing from one form to another. It is a proven fact.
Abiogenesis is about life coming from non-life. It is a hypothesis, but the Miller-Urey experiments in the 1950s confirmed that amino acids CAN form from non-life, under certain conditions.
The Big Bang did not come from nothing. A singularity is not nothing, it is highly compressed matter.
Animals HAVE demonstrated morals, as I said earlier. Google "altruism in animals".
I explained it already. I'm not going to keep repeating myself when you clearly are either incapable of, or unwilling to, read my explanations.
One last time:
"Turn the other cheek" is an unworkable moral code. You know this yourself, which is why you say killing in self-defence is OK, even though it clearly goes against this instruction.
So instead, you attempt to skew and reinterpret those words until they fit the morals you have chosen over the faith you claim to follow.
@ruleofthespirit We decided that we need morals just like a lot of other animals. Earlier on in the development of our species it would have been counter productive to go around killing each other. Morals change with time. The bible talks about slavery as mentioned in this video. That was acceptable then but is frowned apon now. The universe didn't 'come from nothing'. But incidentally, where did god come from?
@almightybob101 Regarding God and death, He says that our day of death is "appointed". In other words, no death is an accident. He has appointed the day and the manner of it.
God is not some wishy washy, ethereal, Father Christmassy, grandaddy sort of figure. Revelations speaks of those who scoffed Him, when they see Him will be so terrified they will beg mountains to fall on them and bury them, rather than have Him look their way.
You should read the Bible some time. Its interesting.
Show him to me, and I'll accept he exists (although if he is actually like the character in the Bible, I won't worship him).
Until then, I will scoff as I do with anything else people believe in without evidence - fairies, leprechauns, elves, Bigfoot, other gods, the Loch Ness Monster, Santa, unicorns, etc.
@almightybob101 Can one take a human life to protect his own life? Certainly! This is a justifiable reason for terminating a life. However, we need to understand that such killing has other alternatives at times. In 1 Samuel 24 King Saul seeks to murder David. David defends himself, but not by killing the one seeking to kill him. Rather he defends himself by demonstrating that he has the power to kill his would be murderer, but spares his life instead.
@almightybob101 The Bible teaches that human life is sacred. Terminating a human life is very serious. Consequently there are restrictions placed upon terminating a person’s life. The government can terminate a life for crimes it deems worthy of death. A person can terminate the life of one seeking to kill them. Such action, however, would seem to be permissible only if there are not alternatives available that would protect both the victim and perpetrator.
@almightybob101 "I think the eradication of a group of people is immoral"
So do I , yet society who you say is has evolved morality justice and human dignity allows the wholesale destruction of millions of defenseless unborn children up to 26 weeks in the womb. The statistics alone are staggering and revolting. Do you subscribe to this sort of morality or has society skirted around this by re-classifying them as "non-human" just like past regimes reclassified certain races as "sub-human".
@almightybob101 You said "Humans determine what morality is. Some societies have accepted behaviour like murder. Those societies failed, because those behaviours are detrimental to the societies."
Do you believe that your society is still moral when it approves of abortion of an unborn child as a womans right to a "lifestyle choice" ,and that she is considered normal and moral?
Did you not say "I do not want to be eradicated, and I extend that desire to others"
There is the rub. You say that YOU consider, YOU are the one who determines right and wrong. You have declared YOURSELF the font and the contributor to society of all what morality, justice and human dignity must be and in the next breath, after talking about the sanctitiy of human life, especially your own, you reclassify a young child in the womb as "non-human" and agree its life that must be rubbed out if its existence is a inconvenience to the mother.
I told you from the start, I determine my own morals, and I explain why. I've also said, repeatedly, that my morals are not absolute truths. Why are you now acting as if that's a revelation?
I didn't say a fetus was non-human. I said it was not yet a person.
I explained why I support abortion - because it would be immoral to force a woman to do something. I do not advocate abortion as birth control - contraceptives are far better.
@almightybob101 " because it would be immoral to force a woman to do something"
So a woman decides to have sex, exchanging bodily fluids , knowing the risks but continuing anyway. She then finds out later that she is pregnant, but to avoid taking the responsibilty for not having safe sex, she now murders the helpless human child who, due to no fault of its own , has to forfeit its life so the mother can retain her own human right. Not very moral.
Do you even read a word I say? I said use contraception, i.e. have safe sex.
I'm not saying abortion is a good thing, or that it's a good solution. But the fact remains, I would consider it immoral to force any woman to do anything.
Did you know that 25% of pregnancies miscarry within the first 6 weeks? What about those "helpless human children who have to forfeit their life"? According to your beliefs, God is the most prolific abortionist of them all.
@almightybob101 "I would consider it immoral to force any woman to do anything" We are not talking of forcing a woman to have an abortion. We are talking of women who thoughtfully and with intent destroy human life, not for medical reasons that threaten her life, but for a lifestyle choice, as a means to avoid taking responsibility for her irresponsibility. By the way, calling an unborn child a foetus is a simple reclassification in order to cope with the deed. God calls it sin, breaking His law
@almightybob101 "we are talking of forcing a woman to bear a child"
Am I ? Where have said this? I am talking of those people who have chosen to carry on as they wish for their own benefit and pleasure and when they are faced with the result of their irresponsibile actions, they make a choice that the child must take the rap, so that they dont have to.
I know a number of women in this scenario who are left with regrets, remorse, guilt and the emotional scars because of what they had done.
As opposed to your religious beliefs which you have made up in your brain and by following the crowd. Yours clashes with Biblical ethics on morality, justice and human dignity. Yours allows one to de-classsiyfy an unborn child as non-human, so if its existence (which is a result of irresponsible action) is an inconvenience, one is allowed to gouge it out from the womb and throw its remains into the recycling like some unwanted pizza.
@ruleofthespirit What we have here is a clash. I can see why you want nothing to do with God. He is competition.
HE says "Thou shall not kill....."
You say " I consider abortion to be morally acceptable"
No wonder you reject God'd laws, You want to be the one making them.
This is why there is a hell, for those who reject God, who want to be their own god, deciding their own idea of right and wrong, who and what lives and who dies.
No, the reason I do not believe in God is because there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that there is a God.
Yes, in the Bible God says thou shalt not kill. He then orders the massacre of thousands - you yourself gave the examples earlier on. Clearly God is as big a hypocrite as you think I am.
Even if you did provide evidence, I might then accept that he exists, but I will never worship a hypocrite who ordered the death of thousands.
@almightybob101 "Yes, in the Bible God says thou shalt not kill. He then orders the massacre of thousands "
No your numbers are wrong. God says He is God and He is the giver of life and He is the one Who takes it. No one else has His authority to do it, except in certain conditions. He says the wages of sin is death and unless you have been unaware, untold millions have died since the beginning of time. There is one definite certainty, because of our sin, God will take our life in His time.
I didn't say "God kills thousands". Although he does. I said he orders the massacre of thousands. He says "thou shalt not kill", and then he tells people in Numbers 31 to kill the men, and kidnap and rape the virgin women. That's the very definition of hypocrisy, and it's not moral. It's sick. And it's just one example.
@almightybob101 Would you say your sense of morals and laws, or cherished beliefs, are important to you? I dont know if you have children, but if you did, will you teach them what you believe today and would you tell them that what you are teaching them are not ultimate truths but are transient and subject to the latest ideas of society? Does that sound right to you?
I would tell my children what my opinions and morals are, and encourage them to think about the issues and voice their thoughts and reasoning on the subject.
I would of course tell them that my opinions and morals are not absolute truths. I accept myself that they are not absolute - I think killing another person is wrong, but not in every case. It is not an absolute.
@almightybob101 "I would say my morals are important to me, yes"
But they are not yours, are they? You say you have drawn them from society, for survival sake, not necessarily for your own benefit, except to survive. That is why they are important to you.
But what if society has got it wrong? Would I not be correct that you are following it blindly, unquestioningly without giving it any thought if it is truly right or wrong or even where or why it first got its ideas about such matters?
My morals are my own. I arrived at them from my own reasoning. Most of them overlap with those of society, because the same reasoning was used. There are some areas where I disagree with the laws of my country - for example, in my opinion if every party gives full consent I see no reason to restrict marriage to two people. But bigamy is illegal in my country.
I do not follow society blindly. I spend a lot of time thinking about these matters, which you should be able to tell.
No they are not. You would be suprised how common your morals are. You may have certain preferences about a few issues as you have pointed out but in general you are not unlike most people.
If peoples morality is quite universal, how come on a global scale is this morality the same, at the same time. I agree there are some remote tribes that think cannibalsim was ok, but in general even they had their own code of justice, not too dissimilar to ours.
This has been flagged as spam show
God exists, that's the accepted claim by the majority of people, you want to challenge that, bring the evidence, the burden of proof is on YOU. Some narrow minded atheist proposed the wrong notion that atheism doesn't require evidence and many gullible atheists had run to foolishly embrace it. Philosophically the burden of proof is in the argument challenging the establishment. What evidence you have that atheism is true? None, zero, nada. Open your eyes, you're being deceived by an evil cult.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Empathy is the root of morality. Understanding the pain of another, knowing what that pain feels like, and wishing not to bring such suffering to others is where morals and ethics takes shape.
buggerwho12 5 months ago 2
I always thumbs up to combat christian votebots......
TheSpartan2910 8 months ago
is that chris griffin calling?
880330145789 10 months ago 2
so wait, in the nazi society they are right? if morality depends on the society then the nazi's are no more right then american society right? But obviously we know consciously there are right morals because mlk jr went against his culture and we respect him for that. he knew with his conscious that racism is wrong. so clearly we cant abide by what society says, there has to be a standard we go by.
goodbyebrov 11 months ago
@goodbyebrov The Nazis lived in the wider community of the world, and the world judged that their moral code was detrimental and harmful. So yes, within the vacuum of Nazi society, their own rules are technically moral, but within the larger context of the world stage, they were not moral.
TheGeneralCritic 2 months ago
@TheGeneralCritic "and the world judged that their moral code was detrimental and harmful."
Absolutely! One could argue, that as social creatures, this ability to define morality as history progresses is an evolutionary process, and those that violate the mores, lose the battle of natural selection (i.e., the war).....
moopism 1 month ago
"gives a punishment that far exceeds the 'crime' " There is your problem - you think NOTHING of your crime or Who you have committed it against.
If threatened to kill my friend, we might land up not being friends. If I threatened to kill a local official, I would get arrested and find myself with a restraining order. If I threatened to kill the President of the Queen of England, I would be arrested and find myself in jail for a very long time.
Same crime, but its who I committed it against .
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit I believe every human being has a equal moral worth, so I reject the idea that it depends on 'who' you kill. The legal system reflects this. The punishment would be the same if you threatened to kill a officer or your friend.
If god exists he is perfectly able to defend himself from any threat, so the punishment should be less severe not more. Also you are saying that god is 'better' than any human and I reject this concept. His power does not make him better than me or you.
markgg1 1 year ago
that is the biggest bunch of BS, morals come from our moral compass humans were created with.
If we evolved in a survival of the fittest world. We would never ever develope morals.
brandisify 1 year ago
@brandisify Thats untrue. A moral person who looks after his family and his community is more likely to get favours from his community, to help him and his family survive long and fruitfully.
His children in a healthy society where we help each other out is more likely to live a long life and have their own children.... meaning the genes are passed on.
Evolution explains morality perfectly, and is the only good explanation we have.
markgg1 1 year ago
God concept was created 6000 years ago by men in Mesopotamia. Everything else is bullshit. Morality (dont kill, etc) was there before, and god is only a super cop, nothing else. He can read in your mind. waouh! Super super cop!!
NFL9475 1 year ago
@NFL9475 You are close. Humans were created about 6000 years ago.
Mesopatamia came later.
Noahs son founded Sumeria.
Yes you are correct about the morals.......They were there before, because the first humans were created with morals. We all have morals given from God.
brandisify 1 year ago
@brandisify ahahaha. If you think that men appear on earth only 6000 years ago, it's your problem, not mine. In civilized aeras like Europe, nobody believe in that crap, even the religious people! We only believe in reason. The present of Europe and the future of the world is secular. Gods and religions are only like childhood diseases for mankind.
NFL9475 1 year ago
@brandisify If the universe was made 6000 years ago why is it we can see stars that are more than 6000 light years away? The light shouldnt have reached the earth yet?
Or did god just speed up the speed of light, or just magicked the light to appear on Earth?
I cant see around this problem for your 6000 year old Earth theory.
Also you can count the tree rings of some trees that are older than 6000 years old. Again how do you explain this?
Unless god tricked us? But why?
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1In 1982, Dr. Barry Setterfield, an Australian astronomer, made an amazing discovery that he first presented at the 1983 National Creation Conference. Dr. Setterfield tabulated all the measurements of the speed of light since 1675. The computer-generated curve showed that the speed of light was slowing at an exponential rate. Extrapolating back to 4082 BC, the approximate time of creation of the earth, the speed of light was 107 – 1011 times its present velocity. ......continued
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit On Speed of Light. GPS satellites and computers absolutely require that the speed of light is a constant or they would not work. GPS works by measuring how long it takes the signal to bounce of your car and back into space.
But this is irrelevant. Even if you proved this to be true, it does not prove christianity.
Also, I know a little bit about this... Sutterfields own data disproved his theory, which is just brilliant irony.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 continued....Immediately, the scientific community set out to discredit Dr. Setterfield's report, only to verify that he was indeed correct to an extremely high statistical probability. No one could explain this exponential decay.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
pwnage!!
chilldaddy81 1 year ago
I can absolutely prove that theists don't take their moral code only from their God.
Christians/etc, when you think about something like rape, do you only think it's wrong because you think God says its wrong, or can you come up with intelligent, logical reasons for why rape is that has NOTHING to do with "Because God says so" or even "well I just feel it in my heart, so God must've put a moral code there".
No, they come up with the same reasons I do for why it's wrong. No God needed.
RockBanned 1 year ago
I think the key point about Christianity is that 'morality' is importan but in no way in and of itself enough, what really matters is grace through faith in christ, as if the impulse to faith is intrinsically different to the impulse to do the right thing; I suppose it would be if that faith was manifest in doing the wrong thing i.e. society found it unacceptable and gave it short shrift... Christianity relies on the convenient incidental that people of faith tend to by happy and do good.
Xenostrobe 1 year ago
Oh, ok ok. lol cut off
CntrBrdr 1 year ago
there cannot be an absolute moral truth in an atheistic world view, its completely subjective like an aesthetic. atheists cant have it both ways, there is no gold standard, if you will, for morality if there is not an anchor in some sort of transcendence
xnorthcarolinax 1 year ago
@xnorthcarolinax Are You suggesting there is Absolute Moral Truth in a theistic world view ?
tranquility4all 1 year ago
@xnorthcarolinax by what standard have you decided god is the good one and the devil is the bad one?
markgg1 1 year ago
I like this song.
MrSalamander7 1 year ago
Pick it, pack it, Fire it up,
Come along, and take a hit from the bong.
S0chan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If a judge, in order to be seen as a loving christian sort of guy, frees a murderer despite the evidence of his crime being evident - would you consider the judge
A) just
B) unjust
If a judge, rightly and justly, using the clear evidence before him applies the law and sentences a murderer to prison - would you consider him
A) Just
B) unloving - "a sadistic bastard" who loves to send people to prison where the will suffer
ruleofthespirit 2 years ago
@ruleofthespirit
LOL not really, these question would require the judge to be infalible, thats why sometimes innocent go to prison...
But funny, in question how u know he is a murder if there is no evidence for it?
AnimusRat 2 years ago
Hi Ani,
In both cases the judges have clear evidence of this persons culpability. So its not an issue of innocence or not but how the judge sentences him (or not) and why.
ruleofthespirit 2 years ago
@ruleofthespirit
Well I am not a judge nor a lawyer, so I would not know a a punishment that fits the crime by the law. you should call a real lawyer for that
But the one that goes by the evidence is prolly the best judge, since we do have to be fair even tho it may let criminal run free.. but the point is to prove it to the judge..
Tho I am more concerned about making a world where criminality is not worth it. Because the system we use is not infalible
AnimusRat 2 years ago
I actually checked with a lawyer. He says that a judge, after reviewing the evidence (and it being absolutely clear that this guys is guilty) will use the law to determine a sentence. Its not down to him personally, so its not an emotional one of hatred towards the criminal, but limited to the confines of the crime, what the law says about committing such a crime and what the law determines the sentence to be. To attack the judge for applying this sentence is simply unreasonable and foolishness.
ruleofthespirit 2 years ago
@ruleofthespirit Yes but the legal system is a system created by people.
God makes the law, and also judges on the law, and punishes. He interprets the law his own way. This is the hallmarks of a fascist leader.
We all agree no country should be governed like this, so why does god get to do it?
If god exists (which Im relieved to see it is likely he doesn't) than god is a fascist. His punishments are unnecessary. They cannot rehabilitate the person as they are in hell for eternity.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 "and its eternal so no chance for forgiveness."
We in society give prison sentences of life without parole to those deserving it. Remember its the same system that provides justice for all. We cannot say, we like this bit of justice but not that one.
God says that when you break His laws or do not live up to His standard of living, you commit offences so great against Him, that eternity in hell is the only JUST and RIGHT sentence for you in response to your crimes against Him.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit But the people who get a life sentence have done a horrific crime and deserve to be punished for the safety of society.
God is punishing people for merely thinking about the universe in a different way to others and not judging us by our actions.
In human society we reject the idea of punishing people for Orwellian style Thought Crimes. We have fought wars against states that do punish you for your thoughts like Stalin and Hitler.
This form of Justice is unjust.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 "But the people who get a life sentence have done a horrific crime and deserve to be punished for the safety of society."
You think your crimes do not warrant such sentences? That is where the term "self righteous" comes from. You have set a standard that you approve of and judge yourself by. God says, you are subject to His laws and His standards and by His standards you have committed "horrible" crimes and to keep Heaven safe from your corruption, He has prepared His prison for you
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit We have discussed this before I think.. but yes ultimately I do have self righteousness. I believe I can differentiate right or wrong independant of any external sources, gods included. My morality fits in line with the healthiest human societies in terms of wealth, health, crime etc. My system works. Democracy, freedom, rule of law. These are all at odds with the concept of the christian god.
He is the dictator who creates the law and judges, and sentences on it.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 " My morality fits in line with the healthiest human societies in terms of wealth, health, crime etc. My system works. Democracy, freedom, rule of law. These are all at odds with the concept of the christian god"
Can I ask you, where did you get your intersting information about God from? Its not from the Bible, your comments clearly illustrate that.
Tell me, what would be the perfect idea or type of God that would suit you to the point you would say yes and amen to?
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
The reason I raise this is that the Bible speaks of God being a judge and that mankind will be judged by Him. The popular misconception is that He has anger issues, foaming at the mouth and throwing everyone into hell for the slightest infraction and being pleased about it. I see a lot of videos here of declaring God in such a light and calling Him immoral. I would agree with them IF he was like that. But when reading the Bible, I discovered that He is just in all His ways. like a good judge
ruleofthespirit 2 years ago
He simply spells out the law, asks us to follow it and if we break it , he will apply a sentence against it. Its really that simple so i struggle to understand the level of animosity that is directed at Him. But if i look at it in the light of the criminal resenting the courts for having the power and the will to enforce the law, because they constantly and willfully broke it, then their attitude makes sense. Saying i dont believe Him or I need evidence first is a smokescreen to hide their guilt
ruleofthespirit 2 years ago
well I dont belive in you God tho, and i have have nothing to hide. If you have the guts to even suggest that I hide myself because of my wrong doings then this convosation is over, i am not here to be offended. So if you get that bias out of the convo we can continue, because it is a strawman.
then its up to the two of us discussing Bible verses and see if the actions are just... but why even go there, we dont even know if that book is correct .
AnimusRat 2 years ago
I have no intention of trying to insult you. What I am doing is speaking from experiences of myself and others who also beleive today how we dealt with Christians who were sharing the gospel with us and what was really going on in our hearts and minds which we didnt want the christian to know at the time.
Its quite common for human beings to think they are basically good or when they have done something wrong to minimise it or blame someone else or get offended by it.
ruleofthespirit 2 years ago
@ruleofthespirit
Spare me fror your intentions, what you play me out now to be is one who is pissed because you may expose me.
But I am not, I am just offended that you strawman me to be that way.
Go take you cloud of smoke a shove it up you arrogant ass, you just destroyed any interrest i had in discussing anything with you. Good Job!
AnimusRat 2 years ago
@ruleofthespirit And to make matters less fair, god knows before hand who will break the law, he also leaves no evidence of his existance, and made humans who are likely to break the laws, as he programmed into us anger, lust etc...
It is so unfair I cannot see how any moral sensible person can worship this system.
It is the most unjust thing I can think off. Worse even than Hitler because Hitler can only inflict temporary punishment on you. God's punishment is eternal.
Its just not right.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 "And to make matters less fair, god knows before hand who will break the law"
Exactly. The Bible shows us that ALL have sinned, even you and I. The purpose of the law is to show you by how much you fall short of His standards and how impossible it is for you to live by His standards. God's ruling is that He cannot entertain any sin because He is Holy and unless you are righteous EXACTLY as He is, Heaven is a closed door to you.
Maybe now you may be ready to hear some good news.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit Why have I sinned? Just because god says I am. I am not responsible for Adam and Eve, or anyone else in history. I am responsible for me and my own actions.
How is it right that I am tarnished with a brush of the crimes of people that lived before me, and than I am judged as an individual for the srimes of others.
I am presumed guilty. Again human society rejects this form of justice as wrong. We presume innocence until proven guilty.
God's system of justice is deeply wrong.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 "God's system of justice is deeply wrong"
Really?
How many lies have you told?
How many times have you looked at a woman with lust?
How many times have you used His name as a swear word?
Its also not just what you do wrong but how you have not lived to a standard He commands you to: To love the Lord your God with all your heart , all your soul and all your mind and to love your neighbour as yourself"
If you want Him to be just then He would have to rightly judge and condemn you
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit I look at my girlfriend with lust every day, and so what? Lust is part of a healthy relationship between a man and a woman. Its what increases our closeness and will maybe even produce a new human being one day.
If you are married are you seriously telling me you do not lust after your wife?
Again, this is where gods laws are just unworkable. If god made us, I presume he programmed the lust into us and than punishes us for acting on our biology? THis makes no sense
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 "I look at my girlfriend with lust every day, and so what? Lust is part of a healthy relationship between a man and a woman."
Jesus was answering those about adultery. Their thinking was that if they looked at other women and imagined being with them, (pornography is a good example) but did not physically follow it through then they were not guilty of adultery. But Jesus said that God sees what goes on inside a person as well as the outside and considers all when making judgements.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@markgg1 "I look at my girlfriend with lust every day, and so what? Lust is part of a healthy relationship between a man and a woman."
By the way, ever heard of fornication? Its means engaging in sexual intercourse outside of marriage. You brag to me about it to justify your lust being unaware that you are holding your hands up to another crime aginst God.
Fish swim in water, even ingesting i,t without realising they are getting wet. Humans swim in sin, not realising they are covered in it.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@markgg1 "Just because god says I am. I am not responsible for Adam and Eve, or anyone else in history. I am responsible for me and my own actions."
You are correct. You are not responsible for their sins but will be for yours. The problem you fail to see is that you were born into a corrupt family tree. Consider an apple growing on a corrupted tree. The fruit by default will be corrupted. Sin is evidence of this. You know when you sin because your conscience tells you, called guilt.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit You didn't address an important pointWhy am I punished individually for the sins of others
How can this be justified Any moral person can see this is not fair. you cant compare gods punishments to law. It assumes innocence until shown you are guilty gives a sentence to try to deter you from doing it again.
God gives a punishment you cannot learn fromYou cant go from hell to heaven even if you are sorry for the thought crime you committed;infinite punishment for a finite crime
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 ". It assumes innocence until shown you are guilty gives a sentence to try to deter you from doing it again."
God is completely fair with you. He has given you a conscience so you know when you do wrong. He has given you His Word, the Bible, full of instructions how to live and warnings of what will happen if you dont. He warns you that you have a day in court with Him to give an account to Him for everything. Once your guilt has been exposed you will be justly sentenced to hell.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@markgg1 "I am presumed guilty."
Are you innocent? Maybe by your standards but not buy God's and its His standards you need to get to grips with.
Only a criminal objects to laws and calls them unfair. Why? Because they want to live as if they are not subject to any laws. How often is it taught that nobody is above the law? Even those who rule civilised countries are subject to its laws. What dont you like about God's law that make you object to them so vehemently? You prefer independence?
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit Im about to go off but I will assume the good news is the loophole that god set up called Jesus Christ. I am told I must worship Jesus to escape infinate punishment.
If Christianity were proven to be true I would be one overnight. Even I am not that brave as to be able to take the punishment that awaits me. I would be scared into loving this being, in the exact same way that Winston Smith is forced to love Big Brother in 1984. U must love him or be sent to room 101 (hell)
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 "I am told I must worship Jesus to escape infinate punishment." You really have a warped view of Christianity. I wonder who taught you to think that way?
IF I went to my doctor and he kept babbling on all about the properties of some new wonder drug, I would be bored witless in 5 minutes and will keep looking at my watch. But if the doctor told me that he had discovered that I had cancer and I would be dead in 6 weeks but this wonder drug can cure me, would I still be bored? No!
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@markgg1 Jesus came to save you. He is the cure for your sin. He paid the punishment for your sin so that if you accept Him, God will forgive you every one of your sins and will cancel the debt of justice you owe Him and you will be free to go. Its not some "grovelling worship" we are talking about here but its gratitiude for what Jesus has aved you from.
Any fireman will tell you of the immense gratitude the people they save show them because the people know what they are saved from.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit I didn't ask for Jesus help. I have done no wrong, so I reject the notion am steeped in sin. I reject gods legitimacy over my life. He has no right to judge me or you.
Its wrong to judge a person by their thoughts. Its the actions that are important.
And exactly what sacrifice did god make? He sacrifices his own body. Cant he just make another one?
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 "Its wrong to judge a person by their thoughts. Its the actions that are important."
How wrong can you be. Without the initial thoughts on any subject there is no motivation for what we go and do. Hitler didnt start the Nazi party by accident, men havent raped women by accident, people who try to make lots of money by all sorts of means because of greed or being envious of those who have more than they do, people lie because they want to avoid being seen in a bad light etc etc
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@markgg1 "And exactly what sacrifice did god make? He sacrifices his own body."
I can see why you think that because your understanding of the matter is incomplete.
Jesus is God in the flesh but He is also a person, one of three, Father , Son and Holy Spirit. I see you struggle to understand that concept so: watch?v=piky0PMQlBI
But your problem is the same as a two dimensional being struggling to comprehend a three or multi dimensional being so:
watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw
I hope this helps
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@markgg1 "I didn't ask for Jesus help. I have done no wrong, so I reject the notion am steeped in sin"
Jesus says we are blind or have been blinded. You assume you can see and understand everything perfectly well but in reality your perpective of matters is limited.
God said He created you but you have declared that you "reject gods legitimacy over my life". Now that is matter of choice so when you enter hell, you cannot blame God for that because it is your own decision - to reject Him.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@markgg1 " as he programmed into us anger, lust etc.."Now that statement is self-serving. It is designed to create an excuse for the things you know you have done wrong , the excuse to pass the buck, to blame God.
People ridicule those who claim "the devil made me do it".
God does not program you to sin. God created us perfectly but our sinful nature is a corrupted version of what was initially designed. Like a program that has a virus. God has a way to deal with that virus and restore you.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit But most modern moral people agree that a punishment should fit a crime.
If god is giving people eternal suffering for thinking a certain way based on evidence, than the punishment is infinitely disproportionate to the crime, meaning god is a tyrant. I can not conclude anything else.
markgg1 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
Gods makes laws that are very difficult to adhere to, if not impossible. Don't eat shellfish, don't be gay, don't work on Sundays, don't kill (what about the enemy soldier).
THe next problem is there is no evidence of these laws even being true.
ANd than god gives a punishment that far exceeds the 'crime' - and its eternal so no chance for forgiveness.
This is not the work of a just entity. I reject the form of Justice. I abhor it.
markgg1 1 year ago
I gave this 5 stars like two seconds in when Matt starting mouthing the words.
Matt singing win...Flawless Victory.
The video itself is interesting and informative as usual.
XKylengX 2 years ago 11
Even Martin Luther, who started Protestant reformation (which led to all the new branches of Christianity there are today) was for slavery. Which just goes to show that even though a person has ONE good idea, doesn't mean they're all good.
When society doesn't think critically and takes laws for granted, that's when it's morality deficient.
Myschly 2 years ago 3
The intro sounded like Hits From the Bong by Cypress Hill at first.
meeputube 2 years ago
That's the sample they used. Dusty Springfield, Son of a Preacher Man.
ingawdywetrust 2 years ago
lol yeah thats what i thought too
luker4459 2 years ago
Morality is from God not from Man.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
You mean the morals from God that permit slavery?
That doesn't seem very morally acceptable to me. Are you OK with it?
almightybob101 2 years ago
No. I mean the millions of unborn children that we have killed simply because they are not loved or wanted. And if you read the bible you would understand the hebrew word is alien and they were to treat them the same as their children. Sounds like a good standard to me. How about you? You ok with killing children just because they are not wanted or it's not the right time to have them???
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
I have read the Bible, several times. Not in Hebrew, in English. If the Bible is talking about aliens, why doesn't it say that? I've never seen a copy of the Bible where "slaves" was translated to "aliens". Anyway, it talks about owning people and the amount to pay for a person. That is the definition of slavery.
What about the bits about stoning unruly children to death? No mis-translation there.
And yes, I am OK with abortion. I think prevention is a better idea, though. Like condoms.
almightybob101 2 years ago
Look up Hebrew words and see what there meaning is. Many times they are called aliens or gentiles. What do you call it when someone says how much they make a year? What is that persons net worth? Are you not in debt to the bank if you owe them your mortgage? The difference is back then if you owed someone you had to work off your debt. People not just in this time frame believed it was the best answer. Instead today we just go BK and the debt is not paid. I believe we are seeing how that worked.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
I understand the concept of owing someone money, but the Bible condones beating your slaves, and gives specific guidelines on how much you are allowed to beat them. That is incredibly immoral, no matter whether they're "gentiles" or whatever excuse you want to make.
You didn't answer my other question. There's no mistranslation in Deut 21:18-21. It clearly states that we should stone rebellious children to death. Do you think this is acceptable moral behaviour?
almightybob101 2 years ago
Read on my friend and let me know how old you think this drunk child is. And review what must be done for this man to be stoned. I tell you the truth when I say they had three to four process that protected the moral but did not protect the sinner. If I qutoed Dawkins saying I would believe in God but left it there you would say read on and I the truth is Dawkins said he would believe in God if he saw proof of him. So I ask you quote the rest of the chapter before you throw these stones of yours
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
Deut 21:18-21
If a person has a stubborn, rebellious son who pays no attention to his father or mother, and they discipline him to no avail, his father and mother must seize him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his city. They must declare to the elders of his city, Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say he is a glutton and drunkard. Then all the men of his city must stone him to death.
almightybob101 2 years ago 5
profligate (King James ) What does the word mean. So is this a Child? Read on through Deut many examples of getting rid of the evil in your town. Kind of like we do with our criminals today. It is easy to point a finger at someone just remember three more are pointing back at you when you do.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
First of all, being drunk isn't a crime.
Secondly, where in the world are you from, where you stone criminals to death in the 21st Century?
Thirdly, I'm not claiming to be an absolute source of perfect morals. Your book, however, is. So when I'm pointing out the disgustingly immoral acts that are promoted in your book of 'perfect' morals, your trite finger-pointing retort is meaningless.
almightybob101 2 years ago 8
You still did not answer the question what does profligate mean? In your country what is the process if someone does something extremely wrong? Be good or I will give you a timeout or a spanking is a tool used today. Show me where one child was stoned... Your problem is you don't admit that there is a right or wrong. There is an absolute. Se my video "Morality without God"
God bless
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
Profligate means extravagant, wasteful, filled with vice etc.
In my country, we don't kill people for their crimes, no matter what their crimes may be.
The fact that the law isn't recorded as being used doesn't matter. It just shows that even the people of the time could tell that it wasn't the correct way to behave. The law is still in there.
I do admit that there is right and wrong.
Stoning children is wrong. Slavery is wrong.
Sexism is wrong. God promotes all these in the bible.
almightybob101 2 years ago 3
"Profligate" adjective 1. utterly and shamelessly immoral or dissipated; thoroughly dissolute.
2. recklessly prodigal or extravagant.
So was this drunk immoral reckless dissolute person a child? Please answer.. Was this law enforced? Please answer... God says if we reject him we will spend an eternity seperated from him in Hell. Has that happened to you yet no. But yet that is a promise from God. So the drunk reckless immoral man could turn back to God just like you can. Sounds fair.
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
@almightybob101 How did you come to that conclusion?
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
Sorry, my posts here are over a year old, and there were quite a few. Which conclusions are you referring to?
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 the one above in the highest rated comments
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
Ah, OK. Presuming you mean my conclusion that the Bible is asserting itself as a perfect moral guide, and not the part about being drunk:
Several passages in the Bible claim that the Bible is the source of morality. A couple of examples being 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Isaiah 8:20-22.
If you're referring to the immoral acts promoted in the Bible, there are too many examples to list in 500 characters.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 Thanks for that. You obviously see yourself as a moral person with your own set of cherished beliefs or commitments.
Could you tell me where you get your ideas of say justice., freedom, human dignity from? You know, where did you get your "ought" and "should" from?
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit Yes, I do.
As Matt says in the video, morality has evolved alongside us. As a social species, certain actions (like murder or theft) are detrimental to the survival chances of the social group as a whole, and so they become unacceptable. Most of them boil down to the idea of treating other people the way you want to be treated (which Jesus actually got right in Luke 6:31, although he was by no means the first). From that idea, justuce, freedom and human dignity naturally arise.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 " From that idea, justuce, freedom and human dignity naturally arise"
Only if people are committed to it.
What happens to those who disagree with your idea of freedom , justice and human dignity? Maybe they have a different idea.
Are they not free to express their ideas on these matters too or do only your matter?
Keep in mind, if everything as you say , "evolved" it means it came from nowhere, then who decides what the rules of freedom justice and human dignity is?
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
They are free to express them, yes. We have an ongoing process for reviewing existing laws and developing new laws. It happens all the time. Those who disagree with the status quo can get involved in that process.
"Evolved" does not mean "came from nowhere".
And we decide what the rules are, as a society.
We can observe many of these same social norms appearing in other highly social species of animals. Our morals are not unique to homo sapiens.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 "And we decide what the rules are, as a society."
If society determined that theft was ok and murder a minor indiscretion, would you go along with it for societies sake or would you object to it. If so, why?
Btw when you refer to animals and humans as if they are the same creatures of habit please note ths point: Animals just eat but its humans that cook.
Also, only humans have a sense of justice, of a right and wrong, far more than simple herd mentality to survive.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
I would object to it, because I do not want to be murdered, or have my posessions stolen. Nor do I want my family and friends to be murdered, or their posessions stolen.
What is that point supposed to mean? It has nothing to do with morality.
How can you possibly know what an animal is thinking? The only way we can know is based on actions, and we have evidence of animals performing selfless acts which suggest greater impulses than the selfish desire to individually survive.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 "It has nothing to do with morality."
But who is it that determines what morality is? You have told me that justice morality and human dignity is evolved by society. Would you agree with society's if it determines that theft and murder is in the best interest for the survival of society?
In other words how do you know that such actions are really that wrong? Again, what basis do you hang on to the fact that murder and theft remains wrong, even if society says it ok?
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
Humans determine what morality is. Some societies have accepted behaviour like murder. Those societies failed, because those behaviours are detrimental to the societies. Our civilisation thrived, because we did not tolerate that.
If everyone suddenly decided that murder and theft were OK in the society I live in, I would seek to reverse any laws that allowed it, and if I could not, I would leave that society.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 "If everyone suddenly decided that murder and theft were OK in the society I live in, I would seek to reverse any laws that allowed it, and if I could not, I would leave that society."
I know you would but why? What is it about such actions that inside you, you strongly determine , as shown in your comment, that society "should not " act in that way or that such actions "ought not " to be allowed that you would" seek to reverse any laws that allowed it"?
Why?
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
I already explained this. I do not want to be murdered, or have my posessions stolen. Therefore I do not want to live in a society where such behaviour is accepted. I want to live with other people who feel the same way. Thus a society where murder and theft are unacceptable is born.
Have you watched the video we're commenting on? Matt talks about this from 1:42 to 2:30.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 "Therefore I do not want to live in a society where such behaviour is accepted. I want to live with other people who feel the same way. "
So are you saying that allthough society evolves all morality, justice and human dignity, it is not always right and if so you would determine it healthy to your own sense of justice, morality and human dignity to seperate yourself from them and live your own? If the other society is dominant is it still moral if it destroys yours to survive?
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
Yes, society is not always right. On a most basic level, a society that allows excessive antisocial behaviour, like rampant murder, will die out. It cannot sustain itself.
I would separate myself from that society, yes, but I didn't say I would live alone. As I just said, I would seek others who did share my beliefs. Humans are a social species, we survive better together.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 "a society that allows excessive antisocial behaviour, like rampant murder, will die out. It cannot sustain itself"
You are correct.
If I may bring up the Bible here on this occasion, would you not agree that "Thou shall not kill" to be a wise commandment designed to instruct a society how to behave to counteract the awful destruction you have pointed out that will destroy any chance of its survival?
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
No. "Thou shalt not kill" is an absolute statement. My morals are not so simple. I believe there are some cases in which killing is acceptable, as does the society I live in. For example, killing in self-defence.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 " killing in self-defence"
That is a survival tactic and even the Bible does not judge a person on that .
I am talking about the alienation and eradication of peoples for the sakle of a society determining to live a certain way, which ses these others as an impediment to its progress. Look back at the 20th century. Do you think those societies were immoral in their actions? If so, does not that moral line up with the commandment "Thou shall not kill?"
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
Where does Jesus say it is OK to kill in self-defence? Doesn't he in fact say the exact opposite in Matthew 5:38-39?
It seems like you're referring to genocide here. Which is obviously not acceptable by my morals or by the 5th Commandment.
Yes, I think the eradication of a group of people is immoral, because my logic still applies to that situation - I do not want to be eradicated, and I extend that desire to others.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 " Where does it say it is ok" The Bible gives numerous explanations on how to deal with someone who is threatening your life ie intent on murdering you.
In Ecclesiastes 3 we are taught that there is a time for everything - even killing. In the Book of Esther we are told of one man’s obsession to destroy the Jews. Haman was so obsessed with his hatred of Mordecai that he deceived the king into signing a death sentence for all Jews (Esther 3:13). continued ...
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@almightybob101 .......Over the next few chapters we see the progression of Haman’s downfall because of his hatred, but Esther 8:11-12 has a very interesting decree. When the king finally sees the folly of the law he signed for Haman, he signs another law giving the Jews the right to defend their lives by killing anyone who is trying to murder them
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@almightybob101 In the Old Testament there was a situation which allowed for a "blood avenger" (Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 19, Joshua 20). In essence, if your kin were slain by another person, the next of kin had the right to take the slayers’ life. If it was an accidental killing the slayer could flee to a city of refuge and be safe from the avenger. If it was a premeditated killing, there was no refuge for the murderer.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
Regarding killing in self-defence: I notice every example you gave was from the OT. It is my understanding that Jesus made a new covenant, and gave new laws which supercede the many hundreds of old laws in the OT (I notice you say nothing to rebut Jesus' words that I quoted). Is that true or false?
If the OT laws regarding killing in self-defence still apply, then all the others logically must too. So I hope you never eat bacon, or wear clothes woven of several fabrics.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 I hear many who cry why they should pay for the sins of Adam and Eve. That its unfair. But looking at your comments I see the very same sin of Adam and Eve, evidence that their crime has passed down generations, the desire to be like God, to be their own god, not needing to depend or rely on the real God who made everything they enjoy and Who gave them their life.
This same God, as any king would deal with any rebel, will capture them soon and justly convict and imprison them.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@almightybob101 Legal recourse. In John 7:1 we are told that the Jews sought to murder Jesus. Then in verse 19 Jesus confronts those who would do this publicly thus exposing them and making it impossible for murder to occur without forfeiting their own lives! The Apostle Paul in the book of Acts had his life threatened many times. One alternative he used simply to leave town (Acts 9).
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@almightybob101 contineud:
Another time Paul used the legal system to protect him (Acts 21 and following). Such Scriptures would indicate that restraining orders are perfectly legitimate ways of controlling people who seek to do you harm.
Its all about using every means at your disposal NOT to kill anyone.
Yet you have no such contraints, even against the most defenseless of human life.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
You're avoiding the question. You said killing in self-defence is OK. Jesus said "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Why do you think killing in self-defence is OK, when Jesus clearly instructs you not to?
You're creating your own morals and rejecting Jesus' instructions just as much as I am. So I'll see you in hell :)
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 Such comments show your ingnorance of biblical matters. You tend to view in in a two dimensional view. Regarding turning the other cheek does not mean lie down and be murdered without a fight but how to handle those who mistreat or hate you for your Christian beliefs.
In conflicts between men where the motive is NOT to punish us for our Christian beliefs, but to steal from us, to hurt us or those we would protect, as in bullying, an act of war etc., that is a different matter.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
Ah, so now the phrase "Do not resist an evil person" means "resist an evil person". Funny how you just interpret Jesus' specific words to mean whatever you want.
It's a clear instruction. The WHOLE passage is about not fighting back. Turn the other cheek. When you are sued for your tunic, give your cloak too.
Obviously this is an insane command, and you think so too. So you reinterpret it as meaning something other than what it says, so you don't have to worry about hypocrisy.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 In the Scriptures God gives us a basic commandment against the taking of human life. For centuries we have been taught the King James translation of the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17). In our language the word "kill" simply means to take a life." It does not differentiate between premeditated killing, accidental killing, killing in war, or killing in self-defense.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@almightybob101 The word God used for "kill" is much more discriminate as it means the deliberate act of murder - taking a human life without justification. In the New Testament we are told in Romans 13 that the government has the right to terminate a human life under justifiable conditions, but does not have the right to take a life where there is no justification. Can one take a human life to protect his own life? This is a justifiable reason for terminating a life.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirt
All this is irrelevant. JESUS COMMANDS YOU NOT TO RESIST AN EVIL PERSON.
If you kill to protect your own life, you are NOT "turning the other cheek" as Jesus commanded. You are resisting an evil person. You are going against Jesus' commands, forming your own morals because you don't like the one Jesus gave you, and therefore will be joining me in hell.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 However, we need to understand that such killing has other alternatives at times. I have already discussed David, Paul ,Jesus , Mordecai and Haman .Refer back at my earlier comments. When Jesus spoke of turning the cheek, it was to teach us to learn a different way of handling difficult matters. Today in courts we use mediation to resolve issues rather than using the law as a hammer but in self defence, it is a completely justifiable response to an immediate threat to your life.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
How do you know that is what Jesus was trying to say? All we have are the words written in the Bible, and his exact, literal words, were "do not resist an evil person".
Your attempts to reinterpret Jesus' words to fit your own morals make me laugh. His teaching is clear, you disagree with it just like I do, but you warp the words of the Bible to fit your own morals whereas I have the honesty to say "no, Jesus was wrong".
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 "Your attempts to reinterpret Jesus' words to fit your own morals make me laugh. "
What you mean is, it clashes with your interpretation. But your interpretation does not marry up with reality but seeks to fit your own agenda. There is a saying, to the jaundiced eye, everything is yellow.
Every Christian know that what I described is correct, its not talking of flight or fight scenarios but rather advice how to handle aggresive people who mean you no good in a better way
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@almightybob101 "How do you know that is what Jesus was trying to say?"
That is easy. When a person learns to study the Bible and not just dips in and out of it, you discover that there are consistencies of actions that marry up with what is taught elsewhere. Once you learn to spot them, it builds a more complete and substantive picture. The Bible is pretty consistent on issues, so your style of picking bits out immediately highlights your lack of real knowledge what the Bible really teaches.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@almightybob101 " I have the honesty to say "no, Jesus was wrong"
Please tell me how you have reached that conclusion
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
I have extensively explained it in my other posts. I am not going to repeat it again. You clearly are not paying attention to what I am saying, because you keep repeating things that I have already explained are incorrect - e.g. that "evolved" means "came from nothing", or that I said a foetus was non-human when I actually said I was not a person.
There's no point in me trying to explain to someone who is not going to take the time to read the answer, so we are done here.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 "non-human when I actually said I was not a person."
Please elaborate how a baby in the womb can be deemed "not a person" up to 20 odd weeks.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit Depends on how you define personhood, on what grounds...
nowayout001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@almightybob101 " I have the honesty to say "no, Jesus was wrong"
Please tell me how you have reached that conclusion
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@almightybob101 " "evolved" means "came from nothing", "
What does evolved mean to you?
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
Sigh. The same as it means to everybody. If you don't know what it means, I suggest you consult a dictionary.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 I still say it changes from one form to another but it had to have a beginning, would you not agree. Even Hawkins and Dawkins agree on that.
They say it all came from nothing in one big bang. So what decided we need morals, justice, respecting human dignity - there is no evidence of it in nature , its only found in human beings, not even monkeys and apes for that matter.
BTW still waiting for your explanation why you think Jesus is wrong regarding turning the other cheek.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
Evolution is about life changing from one form to another. It is a proven fact.
Abiogenesis is about life coming from non-life. It is a hypothesis, but the Miller-Urey experiments in the 1950s confirmed that amino acids CAN form from non-life, under certain conditions.
The Big Bang did not come from nothing. A singularity is not nothing, it is highly compressed matter.
Animals HAVE demonstrated morals, as I said earlier. Google "altruism in animals".
almightybob101 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
I explained it already. I'm not going to keep repeating myself when you clearly are either incapable of, or unwilling to, read my explanations.
One last time:
"Turn the other cheek" is an unworkable moral code. You know this yourself, which is why you say killing in self-defence is OK, even though it clearly goes against this instruction.
So instead, you attempt to skew and reinterpret those words until they fit the morals you have chosen over the faith you claim to follow.
almightybob101 1 year ago 2
@ruleofthespirit We decided that we need morals just like a lot of other animals. Earlier on in the development of our species it would have been counter productive to go around killing each other. Morals change with time. The bible talks about slavery as mentioned in this video. That was acceptable then but is frowned apon now. The universe didn't 'come from nothing'. But incidentally, where did god come from?
Linkacious1 11 months ago
@ruleofthespirit How is "evolved" mean "came from nothing"? Evolution speaks of nothing about origin, it is a process.
nowayout001 1 year ago 3
@almightybob101 Regarding God and death, He says that our day of death is "appointed". In other words, no death is an accident. He has appointed the day and the manner of it.
God is not some wishy washy, ethereal, Father Christmassy, grandaddy sort of figure. Revelations speaks of those who scoffed Him, when they see Him will be so terrified they will beg mountains to fall on them and bury them, rather than have Him look their way.
You should read the Bible some time. Its interesting.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ruleofthespirit
"when they see Him"
Show him to me, and I'll accept he exists (although if he is actually like the character in the Bible, I won't worship him).
Until then, I will scoff as I do with anything else people believe in without evidence - fairies, leprechauns, elves, Bigfoot, other gods, the Loch Ness Monster, Santa, unicorns, etc.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 Can one take a human life to protect his own life? Certainly! This is a justifiable reason for terminating a life. However, we need to understand that such killing has other alternatives at times. In 1 Samuel 24 King Saul seeks to murder David. David defends himself, but not by killing the one seeking to kill him. Rather he defends himself by demonstrating that he has the power to kill his would be murderer, but spares his life instead.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@almightybob101 The Bible teaches that human life is sacred. Terminating a human life is very serious. Consequently there are restrictions placed upon terminating a person’s life. The government can terminate a life for crimes it deems worthy of death. A person can terminate the life of one seeking to kill them. Such action, however, would seem to be permissible only if there are not alternatives available that would protect both the victim and perpetrator.
Have I answered your question?
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@almightybob101 "I think the eradication of a group of people is immoral"
So do I , yet society who you say is has evolved morality justice and human dignity allows the wholesale destruction of millions of defenseless unborn children up to 26 weeks in the womb. The statistics alone are staggering and revolting. Do you subscribe to this sort of morality or has society skirted around this by re-classifying them as "non-human" just like past regimes reclassified certain races as "sub-human".
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@almightybob101 You said "Humans determine what morality is. Some societies have accepted behaviour like murder. Those societies failed, because those behaviours are detrimental to the societies."
Do you believe that your society is still moral when it approves of abortion of an unborn child as a womans right to a "lifestyle choice" ,and that she is considered normal and moral?
Did you not say "I do not want to be eradicated, and I extend that desire to others"
Is your society still moral?
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
Yes, I consider abortion to be morally acceptable, for two reasons.
One: A fetus is not yet a person. It does not yet have the same rights as a born person.
Two: It would be immoral to force a woman to do something against her will, especially involving her own body. Therefore she must have the choice.
Incidentally, you mentioned earlier the government putting people to death. I do not support capital punishment. Nor does the society in which I live.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 "Yes, I consider "
There is the rub. You say that YOU consider, YOU are the one who determines right and wrong. You have declared YOURSELF the font and the contributor to society of all what morality, justice and human dignity must be and in the next breath, after talking about the sanctitiy of human life, especially your own, you reclassify a young child in the womb as "non-human" and agree its life that must be rubbed out if its existence is a inconvenience to the mother.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
I told you from the start, I determine my own morals, and I explain why. I've also said, repeatedly, that my morals are not absolute truths. Why are you now acting as if that's a revelation?
I didn't say a fetus was non-human. I said it was not yet a person.
I explained why I support abortion - because it would be immoral to force a woman to do something. I do not advocate abortion as birth control - contraceptives are far better.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 " because it would be immoral to force a woman to do something"
So a woman decides to have sex, exchanging bodily fluids , knowing the risks but continuing anyway. She then finds out later that she is pregnant, but to avoid taking the responsibilty for not having safe sex, she now murders the helpless human child who, due to no fault of its own , has to forfeit its life so the mother can retain her own human right. Not very moral.
Yet God says , Thou shall not kill.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
Do you even read a word I say? I said use contraception, i.e. have safe sex.
I'm not saying abortion is a good thing, or that it's a good solution. But the fact remains, I would consider it immoral to force any woman to do anything.
Did you know that 25% of pregnancies miscarry within the first 6 weeks? What about those "helpless human children who have to forfeit their life"? According to your beliefs, God is the most prolific abortionist of them all.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 "I would consider it immoral to force any woman to do anything" We are not talking of forcing a woman to have an abortion. We are talking of women who thoughtfully and with intent destroy human life, not for medical reasons that threaten her life, but for a lifestyle choice, as a means to avoid taking responsibility for her irresponsibility. By the way, calling an unborn child a foetus is a simple reclassification in order to cope with the deed. God calls it sin, breaking His law
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
No, we are talking of forcing a woman to bear a child, or seek an unregulated back-alley abortion, because of your religious beliefs.
God calls it sin. The Flying Spaghetti Monster calls it acceptable. Each has equal weight, i.e. none.
The "God says it's sin" argument holds exactly 0 weight with me, because I do not believe in God.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 "we are talking of forcing a woman to bear a child"
Am I ? Where have said this? I am talking of those people who have chosen to carry on as they wish for their own benefit and pleasure and when they are faced with the result of their irresponsibile actions, they make a choice that the child must take the rap, so that they dont have to.
I know a number of women in this scenario who are left with regrets, remorse, guilt and the emotional scars because of what they had done.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@almightybob101 " because of your religious beliefs."
As opposed to your religious beliefs which you have made up in your brain and by following the crowd. Yours clashes with Biblical ethics on morality, justice and human dignity. Yours allows one to de-classsiyfy an unborn child as non-human, so if its existence (which is a result of irresponsible action) is an inconvenience, one is allowed to gouge it out from the womb and throw its remains into the recycling like some unwanted pizza.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit Biblical Ethics & Morality ?
Are You referring to Genocide, Torture, Misogyny, Slavery & Condemnation of Gays ?
All of these are condoned in the bible.
tranquility4all 1 year ago 2
@ruleofthespirit What we have here is a clash. I can see why you want nothing to do with God. He is competition.
HE says "Thou shall not kill....."
You say " I consider abortion to be morally acceptable"
No wonder you reject God'd laws, You want to be the one making them.
This is why there is a hell, for those who reject God, who want to be their own god, deciding their own idea of right and wrong, who and what lives and who dies.
Heil, All Mighty Bob101
God said this is His earth
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
No, the reason I do not believe in God is because there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that there is a God.
Yes, in the Bible God says thou shalt not kill. He then orders the massacre of thousands - you yourself gave the examples earlier on. Clearly God is as big a hypocrite as you think I am.
Even if you did provide evidence, I might then accept that he exists, but I will never worship a hypocrite who ordered the death of thousands.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 "Yes, in the Bible God says thou shalt not kill. He then orders the massacre of thousands "
No your numbers are wrong. God says He is God and He is the giver of life and He is the one Who takes it. No one else has His authority to do it, except in certain conditions. He says the wages of sin is death and unless you have been unaware, untold millions have died since the beginning of time. There is one definite certainty, because of our sin, God will take our life in His time.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
I didn't say "God kills thousands". Although he does. I said he orders the massacre of thousands. He says "thou shalt not kill", and then he tells people in Numbers 31 to kill the men, and kidnap and rape the virgin women. That's the very definition of hypocrisy, and it's not moral. It's sick. And it's just one example.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 Would you say your sense of morals and laws, or cherished beliefs, are important to you? I dont know if you have children, but if you did, will you teach them what you believe today and would you tell them that what you are teaching them are not ultimate truths but are transient and subject to the latest ideas of society? Does that sound right to you?
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
I would say my morals are important to me, yes.
I would tell my children what my opinions and morals are, and encourage them to think about the issues and voice their thoughts and reasoning on the subject.
I would of course tell them that my opinions and morals are not absolute truths. I accept myself that they are not absolute - I think killing another person is wrong, but not in every case. It is not an absolute.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 "I would say my morals are important to me, yes"
But they are not yours, are they? You say you have drawn them from society, for survival sake, not necessarily for your own benefit, except to survive. That is why they are important to you.
But what if society has got it wrong? Would I not be correct that you are following it blindly, unquestioningly without giving it any thought if it is truly right or wrong or even where or why it first got its ideas about such matters?
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago
@ruleofthespirit
My morals are my own. I arrived at them from my own reasoning. Most of them overlap with those of society, because the same reasoning was used. There are some areas where I disagree with the laws of my country - for example, in my opinion if every party gives full consent I see no reason to restrict marriage to two people. But bigamy is illegal in my country.
I do not follow society blindly. I spend a lot of time thinking about these matters, which you should be able to tell.
almightybob101 1 year ago
@almightybob101 "My morals are my own"
No they are not. You would be suprised how common your morals are. You may have certain preferences about a few issues as you have pointed out but in general you are not unlike most people.
If peoples morality is quite universal, how come on a global scale is this morality the same, at the same time. I agree there are some remote tribes that think cannibalsim was ok, but in general even they had their own code of justice, not too dissimilar to ours.
ruleofthespirit 1 year ago