Christians do not "own" morality

[Syd the Human]

I can't make the determination whether it's moral because I don't know the context in which Mandy killed Billy. If Mandy killed Billy because he was trying to rape, beat, murder or broke into her house to cause her bodily harm, she had every right to kill him. If Mandy 'murdered' Billy by poisoning him with radiator fluid to collect on the insurance policy, that's immoral. There's a big difference between murder and killing.

When it comes to the Bible you are making claims about what occurred in it without doing the research (linguistics, history, authorship, what do the scholars say about it etc., how was it compiled etc). You are trying to apply a very simple statement to an extremely complicated document and it doesn't work that way. Therefore you have to dig into it to find out, "OK, what happened here? Let me see what I can find out."

Even when you ask is it moral that Mandy killed Billy, it's much more complicated than that simple statement, because you have what happened between them, what was the crime, their relationship, how did the crime unfold etc. It doesn't work out just to say is it moral that Mandy killed Billy.

Mandy killed Billy because she gave up on him every being a good person.

God clearly had people killed. And even if that is not true, you still have the suffering going on in the world around us today which is within his power to stop. There's just no way to get out of this, I know I tried to when I was a Christian.

 

[Ruthie24]

I think you overreacted to this.

1. I asked for non-religious texts and then you said your evidence was other religions having the same idea as those within the Enoch text. So I asked if you had any other evidence outside of a religion.

2. You were using emotion to try and make a point, and I was asking you not to do that. The only time a person should do that when trying to persuade someone is if they are trying to raise money for charity or something.

3. By "you people" I think you mean agnostics and atheists. I don't think that is true in my case. I have never insulted anyone, but I will admit I have gotten frustrated with people. I think the "meanest" thing I've done is using the doh smiley in one of my posts. And, we are talked to all of the time. So I don't see how you think people don't want to engage with us.

4. If there is so much describing some should not be too hard. I asked for evidence outside of religion and that's the main source I got from you.

5. I have not been lazy or dishonest. You were making some serious claims and I asked if you had any evidence to which you replied you did. Enoch was a religious text and I addressed the points that you made without insulting you at all. And really? I suck hardcore for not instantaneously believing everything that I hear? Am I supposed to believe in Krampus and the Loch Ness monster as well? Plenty of books have been written on them too. The amount that something has been written about does not make it true. And, being in college myself I don't think I would get kicked out. I've gotten an A on every single paper I've written. So I think I know how to do research.

6. I took that quiz when you click on one of those. I think I got warlock because I said if my home were to be broken into I would hide and set an ambush and because my greatest strength would be all of my arcane knowledge. I don't practice anything though. I think the banner is part of a RPG type thing. *Shrug*

Well, to me it's dishonest and lazy to go into a debate and not present any references of your own. You don't even have to give summaries etc, all you have to do is say hey I read this or heard that or saw this article etc and give a name/title etc and that would suffice and I could look at where your worldview is coming from and read up on it. That's all I'm asking and I think that's a fair expectation.

Also I have prob over 150 books on this subject and I wouldn't even know where to start. I also feel like because you are so firmly ensconced in your own worldview it wouldn't make a difference anyway. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I just came on this forum to learn share and discuss. I don't think I'm being out of line when I say I'm tired of presenting stuff and you don't even do your part.

 

[Syd the Human]

Well, to me it's dishonest and lazy to go into a debate and not present any references of your own. You don't even have to give summaries etc, all you have to do is say hey I read this or heard that or saw this article etc and give a name/title etc and that would suffice and I could look at where your worldview is coming from and read up on it. That's all I'm asking and I think that's a fair expectation.

Also I have prob over 150 books on this subject and I wouldn't even know where to start. I also feel like because you are so firmly ensconced in your own worldview it wouldn't make a difference anyway. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I just came on this forum to learn share and discuss. I don't think I'm being out of line when I say I'm tired of presenting stuff and you don't even do your part.

You presented Enoch. I read through it and gave you certain points that you had made and why I thought they were false. Should I present the exact same document back to you?

You presented details about a situation and we are discussing the morality of it. Do we have to present why it is immoral to take the lives of thousands of people?

edit: And where have a I lied about anything? How exactly is debating the present information dishonest?

 

[Ruthie24]

Mandy killed Billy because she gave up on him every being a good person.

God clearly had people killed. And even if that is not true, you still have the suffering going on in the world around us today which is within his power to stop. There's just no way to get out of this, I know I tried to when I was a Christian.

Syd, that's completely illogical, and it doesn't equate. You have to give a real reason why Mandy killed Billy. In court if Mandy said I killed Billy because I think he's a bad person she'd be convicted of homicide. If there was evidence to suggest beyond a reasonable doubt that Mandy killed Billy because he was attempting to rape her or harm her family, then that's justified homicide.

The Bible is a much different premise and the two don't equate. Reread what I said about how to search the Bible. It is not deduced to the simple statements you are making.

 

[Syd the Human]

Syd, that's completely illogical, and it doesn't equate. You have to give a real reason why Mandy killed Billy. In court if Mandy said I killed Billy because I think he's a bad person she'd be convicted of homicide. If there was evidence to suggest beyond a reasonable doubt that Mandy killed Billy because he was attempting to rape her or harm her family, then that's justified homicide.

The Bible is a much different premise and the two don't equate. Reread what I said about how to search the Bible. It is not deduced to the simple statements you are making.

Well I'm glad we agree since that is the reason that god had those people killed.

"5The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord."

"21Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

"20 and all men who walked in the ways of the Lord died in those days before the Lord brought the evil on man which he had declared, for this was from the Lord that they should not see the evil witch the Lord spoke of concerning the sons of men"

"9 to Gabriel said the Lord to proceed against the bastards and the reprobates and against the children of fornication and destroy the children of fornication and the children of the Watchers. Cause them to go against one another that they may destroy each other in battle: shorten their days."

"And the Lord destroyed everything from the face of the earth. Because of wickedness of their deeds and because of the blood they had shed over all the earth, he destroyed everything."

I took that from the Bible and from what you presented. I am sure I could find others if you wanted.

 

[Ruthie24]

You presented Enoch. I read through it and gave you certain points that you had made and why I thought they were false. Should I present the exact same document back to you?

You presented details about a situation and we are discussing the morality of it. Do we have to present why it is immoral to take the lives of thousands of people?

edit: And where have a I lied about anything? How exactly is debating the present information dishonest?

Syd, from what I saw you read through part 4. I presented 4 posts on Enoch. It looks like you didn't see that part idk. As a debate, I expect you to do your part of the research and present your references yes. When you do not, and expect the other person too, that is intellectually dishonest and lazy. In grad school when we were presenting a diagnostic assessment of someone, we had to present our assessment, plus the references, and any studies leading to our conclusion. The opposing side did the same. That's how you debate. If the other side didn't do their part, they didn't pass.

 

[Syd the Human]

Syd, from what I saw you read through part 4. I presented 4 posts on Enoch. It looks like you didn't see that part idk. As a debate, I expect you to do your part of the research and present your references yes. When you do not, and expect the other person too, that is intellectually dishonest and lazy. In grad school when we were presenting a diagnostic assessment of someone, we had to present our assessment, plus the references, and any studies leading to our conclusion. The opposing side did the same. That's how you debate. If the other side didn't do their part, they didn't pass.

Again, done this before.

We are discussing a moral situation. You presented all of the details of that situation which we are discussing. Do you want me to present why it is wrong to commit genocide? Fine, I will do my best to provide evidence for why that is wrong.

The Crime Of Genocide | FRONTLINE | PBS

GENOCIDE - HOLOCAUST <-- This talks about people who survived genocides

If you need more I am sure I can find some.

I read through all of it, but I wanted to discuss the text in part 4 because you kept discussing that the most. And, since it was the actual religious text in question (except for part 3, but some of that I think was paraphrased) I wanted to go straight to the source.

And you have not shown where in this I have tried to deceive anyone.

 

[dhh712]

Mandy killed Billy because she gave up on him every being a good person.

God clearly had people killed. And even if that is not true, you still have the suffering going on in the world around us today which is within his power to stop. There's just no way to get out of this, I know I tried to when I was a Christian.

Syd, that's completely illogical, and it doesn't equate. You have to give a real reason why Mandy killed Billy. In court if Mandy said I killed Billy because I think he's a bad person she'd be convicted of homicide.

I think what she's trying to intimate is that God kills people because He gives up on them being good people.

 

[Syd the Human]

I think what she's trying to intimate is that God kills people because He gives up on them being good people.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Ruthie24]

Yes, exactly.

Again, the genocide between human people does not equate to what happened in Enoch or the flood at least not according to the texts. I am reading Mans Search for Meaning again as we speak and I'm sorry human to human genocide is not what happened in the flood days or Enoch.

You also cannot make a statement that Mandy killed Billy because he is a bad person and use that line to draw judgments about what happened in the Bible. You have to as I said above in one of my posts follow how to research the Bible.

 

[Syd the Human]

Again, the genocide between human people does not equate to what happened in Enoch or the flood at least not according to the texts. I am reading Mans Search for Meaning again as we speak and I'm sorry human to human genocide is not what happened in the flood days or Enoch.

You also cannot make a statement that Mandy killed Billy because he is a bad person and use that line to draw judgments about what happened in the Bible. You have to as I said above in one of my posts follow how to research the Bible.

Human to human genocide vs. genocide by flood.

Is that what we're doing now, debating which type of genocide is worse?

I use the historical critical method whenever I read the Bible. No matter the reason genocide is not okay. You can't convince me that genocide is justifiable. That is a moral issue for me which I cannot deviate from.

 

[alien444]

Hello Ruthie (and thread members),

Ruthie, while I find your research interesting in that it definitely brings to our attention various apocryphal books that present later elaborations on the Genocidal incidents in the O.T, I think we might want to keep in mind that God did what He did overall because He holds all nations to the same standard, including Israel. Therefore, if nations just so happen to keep on keeping on with godless practices, God will eventually make a solid end of those nations and/or people groups. See Leviticus 18 & 20.

Peace

Weren't there surely innocents among the populations of these countries?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Syd, from what I saw you read through part 4. I presented 4 posts on Enoch. It looks like you didn't see that part idk. As a debate, I expect you to do your part of the research and present your references yes. When you do not, and expect the other person too, that is intellectually dishonest and lazy. In grad school when we were presenting a diagnostic assessment of someone, we had to present our assessment, plus the references, and any studies leading to our conclusion. The opposing side did the same. That's how you debate. If the other side didn't do their part, they didn't pass.

What evidence did you present? The Book of Enoch?

 

[Ruthie24]

Human to human genocide vs. genocide by flood.

Is that what we're doing now, debating which type of genocide is worse?

I use the historical critical method whenever I read the Bible. No matter the reason genocide is not okay. You can't convince me that genocide is justifiable. That is a moral issue for me which I cannot deviate from.

Ok Syd, I don't have any specific method. I look at a lot of different things when I view any type of documents.
I'm using the flood as a historical starting point mentioned in Enoch and Genesis and other texts. I don't know where you concluded I was comparing genocides. You are free to believe what you want. I don't claim to know anything 100% and I'm not going to say God genocided people if I see no evidence of it. According to those texts it was not genocide but you are free to draw your own conclusions. I'm not comfortable with that because I don't know what happened 100%, only what the texts and scholars say and yes even they could be wrong. My sense though is that they are onto something that's been purposefully kept quiet.

 

[Syd the Human]

Again, the genocide between human people does not equate to what happened in Enoch or the flood at least not according to the texts. I am reading Mans Search for Meaning again as we speak and I'm sorry human to human genocide is not what happened in the flood days or Enoch.

You also cannot make a statement that Mandy killed Billy because he is a bad person and use that line to draw judgments about what happened in the Bible. You have to as I said above in one of my posts follow how to research the Bible.

Ok Syd, I don't have any specific method. I look at a lot of different things when I view any type of documents.
I'm using the flood as a historical starting point mentioned in Enoch and Genesis and other texts. I don't know where you concluded I was comparing genocides. You are free to believe what you want. I don't claim to know anything 100% and I'm not going to say God genocided people if I see no evidence of it. According to those texts it was not genocide but you are free to draw your own conclusions. I'm not comfortable with that because I don't know what happened 100%, only what the texts and scholars say and yes even they could be wrong. My sense though is that they are onto something that's been purposefully kept quiet.

From the underlined it looked like you were comparing genocides.

And the text you provided did not show in any way that those were not people.

 

[Ruthie24]

Weren't there surely innocents among the populations of these countries?

According to the texts there was nothing but nephilim and their progeny as well as those that completely worshipped them. Apparently Noahs family etc was the only line that wasn't tampered with by the Nephilim. Interestingly there are over 200 cataclysmic flood stories all over the world that allude to very a very similar situation.

 

[Ruthie24]

From the underlined it looked like you were comparing genocides.

And the text you provided did not show in any way that those were not people.

As I said before you are free to believe what you want and draw your own conclusions.

 

[bhsmte]

Again, the genocide between human people does not equate to what happened in Enoch or the flood at least not according to the texts. I am reading Mans Search for Meaning again as we speak and I'm sorry human to human genocide is not what happened in the flood days or Enoch.

You also cannot make a statement that Mandy killed Billy because he is a bad person and use that line to draw judgments about what happened in the Bible. You have to as I said above in one of my posts follow how to research the Bible.

If you believe in a literal flood, which I imagine you do, did the actions of God kill massive amounts of people in the flood? Yes, or no?

And, since the method of killing was drowning, do you think some suffered a horrific death?

 

[Syd the Human]

According to the texts there was nothing but nephilim and their progeny as well as those that completely worshipped them. Apparently Noahs family etc was the only line that wasn't tampered with by the Nephilim. Interestingly there are over 200 cataclysmic flood stories all over the world that allude to very a very similar situation.

Yes, and don't you find that suspicious that many different religions have a different spin on a very similar story, doesn't it make sense that these stories have been passed down and people have gradually changed it over time?

 

[Ruthie24]

If you believe in a literal flood, which I imagine you do, did the actions of God kill massive amounts of people in the flood? Yes, or no?

I do not know 100% that a flood occurred. All I'm saying is the evidence suggests several cataclysmic events occurred, one being a flood.

Like I said before according to Enoch and the other texts as well as other sources they were nephilimic progeny and those that worshipped them. You are free to believe whatever you want. I am not 100% sure about anything but the evidence does suggest that.