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.
Huh? You just said you agree that the morality regarding slavery has changed... jnow you are saying that only food morality has changed?Food is the only thing made clean, that is the only time somthing bad becomes good.
Your posts are not making any sense whatsover. When Enemyparty catches what you are saying is wrong, you come up with yet ANOTHER ambiguous answer.Sorry, I assumed you would include those that I had already said. This is just the one I hadn't mentioned.
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?
Do what you like, providing you have the informed consent of all others involved... there, that is my proposal for a moral system by which society may function appropriately.1) as is already demonstrated- you have proposed no such accomodating system- you only think you have, and fail to see its failings.
Except for when it changes (slaves/dietry laws, women in pants, etc)2) Right and wrong are already immutable.
Excellent. so from this point on, I'll be requiring you to explain what secifically is wrong about any action you consider to be so, rather than just saying "the Bible SEZ!"3) Yes, I would prefer a system of right and wrong that was actually right and wrong.
So? Does that mean the current system is perfect?4) Everyone in society by the vote of their address has consented to be governed by the rule of law.
Well, because if people are allowed to do what they like (assuming informed consent of all involved) You won't find people being persecuted needlessly for silly things like skin colour or sexual orientationWhy should the law of Right and Wrong be changed to something that means whatever you desire?
Do what you like, providing you have the informed consent of all others involved... there, that is my proposal for a moral system by which society may function appropriately.
So. Tell me whats wrong with it? Specifics are required.
Except for when it changes (slaves/dietry laws, women in pants, etc)
Excellent. so from this point on, I'll be requiring you to explain what s[p]ecifically is wrong about any action you consider to be so, rather than just saying "the Bible SEZ!"
So? Does that mean the current system is perfect?
Well, because if people are allowed to do what they like (assuming informed consent of all involved) You won't find people being persecuted needlessly for silly things like skin colour or sexual orientation
So... explain to me why God should care what I do, assuming I have the informed consent of anyone else involved?Its already like this- you are even allowed to do things that are wrong- the difference is the consequences for your actions. There will always be accountability- and when it comes to moral accountability- it is between you and God- it doesnt mean it isnt there though.
I don't see why "because it is" nails it here. I believe, the root of ALL morality, is to do with the running of a successful society... within moral guides, a society will work better than one without moral guides... make sense? So, given that consentual canibalism will never be anything but a statistical outlier... I don't see the problem."What is wrong with consentual cannibalism??"
The Bible doesn't tell us what laws may be considered moral laws and which may considered some other sort of variable law... so I'm yet to see why you demand that homosexuality be considered immoral, whereas you don't consider slavery, or the subjugation of women, to be moral.Im referring to moral law- right and wrong- that is the context of our argument is it not?
So, since the Bible condones slavery, forcing rape victims to marry their attackers, and stoning children to death for back talking their parents...No. The Bible already defines the standard- the answer is a valid answer- as are legal standards based on moral law.
that is not relevant to what I was saying... you said "4) Everyone in society by the vote of their address has consented to be governed by the rule of law. " so, I want you to tell me that where you live right now is perfect... OR is it just the example that you approve of the most. The "Love it or Leave it" type of debate when a nation's policy or action are questioned has always struck me as overly simplisticWhat system? God's? Yes, God's system of morality is perfect- by default.
My argument fails? Tell you what... if you cite me just one example of one group of humans needlessly persecuting another group of humans that ISN'T justified because of "religious morality" I'll withdraw from the field and call you the winner.Changing what is right and wrong, will not change the landscape of persecution- because it is a human motivated event.
So... explain to me why God should care what I do, assuming I have the informed consent of anyone else involved?
I believe, the root of ALL morality, is to do with the running of a successful society... within moral guides, a society will work better than one without moral guides... make sense?
So, given that consentual canibalism will never be anything but a statistical outlier... I don't see the problem.
The Bible doesn't tell us what laws may be considered moral laws and which may considered some other sort of variable law... so I'm yet to see why you demand that homosexuality be considered immoral, whereas you don't consider slavery, or the subjugation of women, to be moral.
So since you have framed situations negatively, and without context according to how you think things should be- this makes your opinion of what is right and wrong better than God's? Why? Because you say so? Why do you get to change the basis of morality for everyone? Why should anyone listen to your idea over God's plan?So, since the Bible condones slavery, forcing rape victims to marry their attackers, and stoning children to death for back talking their parents... that is not relevant to what I was saying... you said "4) Everyone in society by the vote of their address has consented to be governed by the rule of law. " so, I want you to tell me that where you live right now is perfect... OR is it just the example that you approve of the most. The "Love it or Leave it" type of debate when a nation's policy or action are questioned has always struck me as overly simplisticMy argument fails?
Tell you what... if you cite me just one example of one group of humans needlessly persecuting another group of humans that ISN'T justified because of "religious morality" I'll withdraw from the field and call you the winner.
Just one.
Can you do it?
And if said slave dies after two days their owner is off scott freePunished for being marolly right?
20 "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.
There is no rape???They are not forced into marrige, the man is. There is no rape.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [a] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
remember your original claim was "Isrealites are told not to make slaves of each other" http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=32925539&postcount=58Those versus say if you buy one you must let him go(after seven years.) The "abuse" is consentual.
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave"Exodus 21:7Serventhood not slavery. Close but not the same. The Father is not in it for a profit, usually, he does it because he has to.
so slavery is moral so long as one can pretend that slaves are really better off as slaves.This is from a time when, had the slave gone free, the slave would be in a far worse position.
cannibals don't eat living people...they eat dead ones.Thou shal not kill. And your supposed to love your neighbor, in life and death. Your not supposed to eat dead flesh either.
you don't get to exclude people just because they don't fit your pre conceived notions.I'm sure that there born again status is supported by this devorce?
but it was.That wasn't in response to "legal recognition of same sex marriage."
so as long as slavery is legal it is morally all right?So, it was lawful to have a slave back then. Please quit changing the subject.
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her" Deuteronomy 22:28That is a hypothetical situation that this verse does not even imply as moral. It is cheating/lieing.
I don't think what I'm saying is contrary to God's opinion... I just think its a shame you are so caught up in what the Bible says that you can't see the fundamental reason it says what it says... and you stick to what the Bible says DESPITE it being written long ago and far away by fllible humans.Why do you get to define what is moral? That is the question I have been asking- I know it is what you believe, why do you think morality should be individually designed by everyone? Why is it- that your opinion is greater than God's?
I accepted it... and responded by asking you to tell me what was wrong with it. You were unable to without falling back on pre-existing concepts, rather than LOGICALLY deducing from universal, self evident first principals that there was anything wrong with it.This was one of your "give me just one example" questions. I cited, you slid down the dehumanizing slope of not accepting it.
Thats was a whole lot of dodging... so I'll simplify the question: Where does the Bible tell us which laws are to be eternally enforced, and which are negotiable?It does- in fact from it, there has been much extrapolation to modern law- this is a key feature of Western Civilization vs other civilizations. It is a reason why Moses is on the facia of the Supreme Court building. Until you just mentioned- this debate that we are having is specifically restricted to WHY IS YOUR OPINION OF WHAT IS RIGHT, GREATER THAN GOD'S- AND WHY DOES MORAL RIGHT AND WRONG NEED TO CHANGE TO BE BASED ON YOUR DESIRES? Given the cannibalism example- I am beginning to doubt if you are going to be objective with me in this debate. The topics of slavery and submission of women deserve their own threads.
I think you are missing my point, so again, I'll attempt to simplify... Are there practices considered moral in the Bible that you don't consider moral today?So since you have framed situations negatively, and without context according to how you think things should be- this makes your opinion of what is right and wrong better than God's? Why? Because you say so? Why do you get to change the basis of morality for everyone? Why should anyone listen to your idea over God's plan?
Sounds like a cop out to me... if you can't come up with an example of secular persecution, you could just admit it. BTW the cannibalism example doesn't fitDo you mean like the cannibalism example that you asked me to cite just one example? I have been there and done that. I am not convinced you would accept it if I cited an example, and frankly- Im not convinced it matters
Well, I'm here talking about it, and apparently God is happy to let me do so.we still have the challenge of why is your opinion greater than God's?
I never said my opinion is greater than God's. If you continue to insinuate such, I'll get upset.
However, I will say this... I believe that what I am saying does not, in ANY way, breach God's will for us... because I DON'T think the Bible is a handbook of God's specific injunctions and thoughts, but rather an ancient attempt at a handbook for the running of a society... at least as far as the legalistic stuff is concerned.
In short... it DOESN'T say that "homosexuality is bad" because it is against God's will, it says it because, in the context of that particular ancient society, homosexuality was considered contrary to the greater God, and therefore, God's name is invoked to stop it happening. Now that we are living in a different society, such notions need to be reassessed.
I believe gave us the faculty for rational thought and assessment to make such determinations on our own, and that He wouldn't expect us to follow practices that are illogical or meaningless because of what some old book says.
So, back to the beggining again... if you can give me any reason to consider homosexuality immoral without citing the Bible, that is, a secular moral reason, I'll give it up.
The Bible IS inadequate... as discussed, it makes a moral stand blatantly different to the modern day in many respects.1) Such a position claims that God couldnt make His Word as He wanted it to be- that the Bible is inadequate.
If the person has a logical reason for the disagreement, then yes.2) That a person's disagreements with the Biblical position are more important than what God had to say about it.
Its not a matter of any POV being "better" than another... its matter of being appropriate to the contemporary social contextThat if the Bible was written by men, and was NOT influenced by God- that your input is more important than theirs? When such a position is taken- you have lost the right to distinguish between who's is better.
Explain to me again how YOU arent picking and choosing when you ignore the Biblical bits about slaves, women being worth less than men, wearing clothes of mixed fibre, and four legged birds?4) The Bible isnt God's Word- I just want to pick and choose which parts are God's Word- again, this positions man's opinion above God's- because now personal opinion is editing God's Work.
Nonsense Because you are yet to explain to me what God's principals actually ARE... you are just citing 3 thousand year old laws as though their very existence does service as a principal in itself. And it doesn't.It is putting man's desire ahead of God's principles- as the foundation of right and wrong. Desire is a lousy principle upon which to base right and wrong- although Rand has built such a philosophy.
I'm listening. I'm yet to hear you explain to me why basing ones actions on human desire (with consent) is so dangerous? What cn go wrong? And what logical reason is there to consider such consequences "wrong"?My thinking is that since we cant even agree on the basis, and the importance of God's Word, the dangers of our human desires,
You believe everything in the Holy Bible is inspired by God? Stoning to death a rape victim? the marrying of a rape victim and her attacker for life? SWEET! i had no idea a loving God would do stuff like that. I guess I serve another God than you do.That is all the further I had to read. As I suggested previously, we are at an impass, and have irreconcilable differences.
G
And if said slave dies after two days their owner is off scott free
remember your original claim was "Isrealites are told not to make slaves of each other" http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=32925539&postcount=58
which is obviously false
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave"Exodus 21:7
cannibals don't eat living people...they eat dead ones.
Remember your original claim was: "I'm pretty sure that is addressed in the ten commandments" http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=32925539&postcount=58
Which obviously it is not.
but it was.
I asked:
"can you provide real world examples of "hurt" in
a same sex marriage?
a Hindu marriage?
an atheist marriage?
I look forward to your many examples ."
And you responded:
"Have you seen the divorce rates in America " http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=32925539&postcount=58
There is no rape???
"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her..." Deuteronomy 22:28
a little honesty please
She was provided for the rest of her life.
She also presumably had to have sex w/the very man who raped her for LIFE! Let's not forget probably have to give birth to his children, and have mixed babies of DNA w/that beautiful husband of unequal yoke.
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?