Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[BPPLEE]

That’s one option. I’d just suggest that you watch your tone, and if it get contentious in the least just let it go!

View attachment 315226

Thanks for the advice .Not everyone is letting it go

 

[BPPLEE]

Whenever anyone kills someone else, they have to take personal responsibility for it. It was their choice to commit the act. 'I was told to do it' or 'I was just following orders' doesn't cut it. Neither does 'It is written'.

What did Jesus do when the woman who was accused of adultry was brought to him? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Is that not written? That is the example we should follow.

 

[BPPLEE]

No it didn't, despite your attempt to take it there.

Vladimir Putin's?

So what is the discussion about then?

 

[TLK Valentine]

What did Jesus do when the woman who was accused of adultry was brought to him? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Is that not written? That is the example we should follow.

Good luck with that.

 

[BPPLEE]

Good luck with that.

Oh you are a pessimist?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh you are a pessimist?

No, merely observant.

 

[BPPLEE]

No, merely observant.

Can't argue with that

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So what is the discussion about then?

Who does this refer to?

 

[BPPLEE]

Who does this refer to?

Never mind. Have a good weekend

 

[AV1611VET]

Never mind. Have a good weekend

I think he's going somewhere this weekend.

 

[BPPLEE]

I think he's going somewhere this weekend.

That's great

 

[Bradskii]

What did Jesus do when the woman who was accused of adultry was brought to him? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Is that not written? That is the example we should follow.

Quite right. If 'it is written' that we should treat others with compassion then we decide that that is a command that is moral. That makes sense. That leads to a better world. That we should follow.

But if 'it is written' that we should stone the woman in the first place then we decide that that is an immoral command. One that makes no sense. One that would lead to misery and despair. One that we shouldn't follow.

We take responsibility to follow one and not the other. And do I have to point out to you that both the command to stone women and the suggestion that we should not comes from the same deity?

 

[BPPLEE]

Quite right. If 'it is written' that we should treat others with compassion then we decide that that is a command that is moral. That makes sense. That leads to a better world. That we should follow.

But if 'it is written' that we should stone the woman in the first place then we decide that that is an immoral command. One that makes no sense. One that would lead to misery and despair. One that we shouldn't follow.

We take responsibility to follow one and not the other. And do I have to point out to you that both the command to stone women and the suggestion that we should not comes from the same deity?

Israel is not everyone and gentiles were never instructed to follow the law. Like we don't have to be circumcised. The Jewish people had to survive in order for the Messiah to come and there are things written exclusively for them that we won't ever understand. As I said Jesus only gave us 2 commandments

 

[Bradskii]

Israel is not everyone and gentiles were never instructed to follow the law. Like we don't have to be circumcised. The Jewish people had to survive in order for the Messiah to come and there are things written exclusively for them that we won't ever understand. As I said Jesus only gave us 2 commandments

Are you saying that stoning women is something you cannot understand? That you don't have a position on that? Surely not.

 

[BPPLEE]

Are you saying that stoning women is something you cannot understand? That you don't have a position on that? Surely not.

I'm saying as a Gentile I was never instructed to do that. What I think of it is irrelevant

 

[Bradskii]

I'm saying as a Gentile I was never instructed to do that. What I think of it is irrelevant

Of course it's relevant. The discussion has been about how one could morally justify the flood. The attempts to avoid any direct response has been nothing short of desperate. But now we have reached a point where even the stoning of women cannot be condemned. Your response has been nothing more that 'It's nothing to do with me. It only applies to Jews'.

You are surely aware that this crime against humanity still occurs in some Islamic states. Do you shrug your shoulders at each occurance and say 'What I think is irrelevant. It's not me who is doing it'.

 

[BPPLEE]

Of course it's relevant. The discussion has been about how one could morally justify the flood. The attempts to avoid any direct response has been nothing short of desperate. But now we have reached a point has been reached where even the stoning of women cannot be condemned. Your response has been nothing more that 'It's nothing to do with me. It only applies to Jews'.

You are surely aware that this crime against humanity still occurs in some Islamic states. Do you shrug your shoulders at each occurance and say 'What I think is irrelevant. It's not me who is doing it'.

Have a good weekend. You need to take a break. I never said it was okay to stone anyone and no matter what I say you'll negate it and even take my words out of context to make a point. You seem to think you are the moral authority and stand judging everyone else. One day we'll all find out we were wrong about a lot of things

 

[Bradskii]

Have a good weekend. You need to take a break. I never said it was okay to stone anyone and no matter what I say you'll negate it and even take my words out of context to make a point. You seem to think you are the moral authority and stand judging everyone else. One day we'll all find out we were wrong about a lot of things

Back the truck up, BB. Nobody has accused you of saying it was OK and nobody has taken your comments out of context. You have been asked if you consider it immoral and you have refused to answer. I would have thought it would be one of the easiest answers it could be possible to give.

Apparently not.

 

[BPPLEE]

Back the truck up, BB. Nobody has accused you of saying it was OK and nobody has taken your comments out of context. You have been asked if you consider it immoral and you have refused to answer. I would have thought it would be one of the easiest answers it could be possible to give.

Apparently not.

You took one sentence out of my post yesterday and totally ignored what I said. If this is about the flood you have been arguing for 2 days about something you don't even believe happened .Why is what I believe so important to you? I never drowned anyone never stoned anyone and I had the opportunity to take a life many times and would have been justified but I never did at great risk to myself. So what I believe does not make me a threat to anyone

 

[Bradskii]

You took one sentence out of my post yesterday and totally ignored what I said. If this is about the flood you have been arguing for 2 days about something you don't even believe happened .Why is what I believe so important to you? I never drowned anyone never stoned anyone and I had the opportunity to take a life many times and would have been justified but I never did at great risk to myself. So what I believe does not make me a threat to anyone

I'm certain that you aren't. But we are investigating how scripture can affect one's moral compass. The original example was the flood. Nobody seems to want to condemn it as immoral because they deem anything God does as being moral. So we looked at the situation where God gives the command for others to do something we surely would consider to be immoral.

And we still don't get any condemnation. All we get is 'It's not for us. It's for the Jews. I wouldn't do it'. And no, that's not a direct quote but it's your stated position. Which is simply adding weight to my argument.