So, rather than trying to accomodate everyone, a system which, as discussedm harms no one assuming informed consent... you would prefer an arbitrary list of imuteable laws that is applied to everyone without their consent?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So, rather than trying to accomodate everyone, a system which, as discussedm harms no one assuming informed consent... you would prefer an arbitrary list of imuteable laws that is applied to everyone without their consent?the point Im making is that personal opinion and desire, is a lousy standard of right and wrong- and when applied, you lose the basis to debate anything on moral grounds- as is illustrated here- people will make a case for anything.
20% of the population, the non-christian section, is not responsible for the statistic that 50% of all marriages in Westernised cultures en in divorceQuote:
That's why Christian divorces are so high, right?
You can't tell me that 20% of America's population is responsible for our nearly 50% divorce rate.
? come again.
So, rather than trying to accomodate everyone, a system which, as discussedm harms no one assuming informed consent... you would prefer an arbitrary list of imuteable laws that is applied to everyone without their consent?
The end result being that there is no reason to justify prejudice and discrimination other than the personal desire of the individual who has chosen to engage in prejudice and discrimination against a particular minority .As already noted- by what standard are we to judge something right or wrong, if the absolute truth is set aside? If it is set aside, and we go on personal evaluation- by what standard are we going to judge the answers? If it all comes down to personal wants and desires- what basis are the results to your question going to have?
In short- the question just doesnt really matter outside of Truth.
G
You desire an authoritarian system of morality and go to great lengths to fabricate one. But realize that even if an absolute right and wrong exist we still decide what that absolute law is and its details by engaging in relativism.This is my point exactly- on why personal opinions really suck as the standard for right and wrong. The fact that you have to ask what is wrong about consensual cannibalism is proof of that point, if there ever was.
So- why is it that I should redefine what is right, to what I want and desire as the standard, when history is replete with examples of this approach failing.
G
Have you seen the divorce rates in America. That is what comes from marriges that do not have God.
Who said anything about casual sex?Do you think people having casual sex feel spiritually full afterwareds?
I guess I missed "Thou shall not eat thy dead neighbor"I'm pretty sure that is addressed in the ten commandments. As well as the Golen rule.
(Above response)
Sex outside marrige is wrong as far as rape goes.
Isrealites are told not to make slaves of each other, and as we are all christians, or have the abbility to become such, it is definiently wrong.
Exodus 21:20-21 tells us that it is morally acceptable to not just beat a slave but also to kill a slave.How to be a slave.
That is not loving then is it
The end result being that there is no reason to justify prejudice and discrimination other than the personal desire of the individual who has chosen to engage in prejudice and discrimination against a particular minority .
You desire an authoritarian system of morality and go to great lengths to fabricate one. But realize that even if an absolute right and wrong exist we still decide what that absolute law is and its details by engaging in relativism.
Just like a woman is "Free", when she has to marry her rape attacker for life in Deut.?If by relativism, you mean we have to interpret for ourselves, and it matters if we get it right or not- then yes. If you mean that it is up to us whether we get it right or not, and there are no consequences for choosing wrongly- then no, I disagree.
It is my position, that people are free to get things wrong, but they are not free of the responsibility of getting it right, or the penalty for choosing the wrong choice.
G
Exodus 21:20-21 tells us that it is morally acceptable to not just beat a slave but also to kill a slave.
All detail the use of rape to force a woman into marriage.
Exodus 21:2-6 details how to buy and abuse a fellow Israelite
Exodus 21:7-11 tells us how to make a profit by selling an unwanted daughter into slavery
1 Timothy 6:1-2 tells how a good Christian slave honors his/her Christian master.
I guess I missed "Thou shall not eat thy dead neighbor"
First, you are stuck explaining why born again Christians have a significantly higher divorce rate than Atheists or Hindus or Jews or Muslims or Pagans.
Third, you cannot explain just what does the high divorce rate of Christians have to do with the legal recognition of same sex marriage?
20% of the population, the non-christian section, is not responsible for the statistic that 50% of all marriages in Westernised cultures en in divorce
Do you consider beating a slave into a day's worth of unconsciousness or incapacitation, to be "morally right"? Not to mention that the passage clearly condones slavery outright20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
So... a man sees a hot young thang, and decides he'd like to marry her... he rapes her, against her will, and then the law says they have to get married...They are not forced into marrige, the man is. There is no rape.
Are you a vegetarian?Your not supposed to eat dead flesh either.
So a freed slave is actually worse off? Please explain?This is from a time when, had the slave gone free, the slave would be in a far worse position.
Do you consider beating a slave into a day's worth of unconsciousness or incapacitation, to be "morally right"? Not to mention that the passage clearly condones slavery outright
So... a man sees a hot young thang, and decides he'd like to marry her... he rapes her, against her will, and then the law says they have to get married...
This is
A. not rape how?
B. Moral how?
Are you a vegetarian?
So a freed slave is actually worse off? Please explain?
I'm not changeing the subject... the point is this... "back then" it was considered morally acceptible to own slaves.So, it was lawful to have a slave back then. Please quit changing the subject.
When is the last time you killed meant that you ate, compared to the last time you actually just ate meat that was already dead?You can eat flesh that you have killed. Not just somthing already dead.
Um... what? How do you figure? Once a freed slave was free... they were a free person... I think you need to study your Roman history a little more before you make any further unsupported statementsHe would be put into service again, but for a non-christian master.
I'm not changeing the subject... the point is this... "back then" it was considered morally acceptible to own slaves.
Now, considering your whole argument against homosexuality seems to be that it was considered immorral "back then"... you need to explain why the morality of keeping slaves has changed, yet the morality relating to homosexuality is forever and ever immuteable and unchangeing
When is the last time you killed meant that you ate, compared to the last time you actually just ate meat that was already dead?
Um... what? How do you figure? Once a freed slave was free... they were a free person... I think you need to study your Roman history a little more before you make any further unsupported statements
They aren't related one wasn't bad and now is, the other stayed bad.
Just... what? I mean... what? What are you talking about? Do you have any idea?Whatever, who is going to believe a slave anyway?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?