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.
What I know is that kill and murder are quite different concepts. Why move the goal posts? Nonetheless, if killing is what you want to talk about then yes God has always allowed killing and killing is morally neutral when done for survival. We must kill in order to survive. We cannot survive without killing so if God were to pronounce killing as morally bankrupt, we would simply have to engage in morally bankrupt behavior as we cannot cause our bodies to refrain from attacking bacteria and viruses nor are we inclined to stop eating and drinking causing ourselves to starve to death or die of dehydration. The fact that God told people to kill does not mean that God told people to murder. If God were to all of a sudden decide that from now on murder would be a fine thing, then murder would be morally upright. Just as he decided that from now on eating pork would be a fine thing but previously, He had decided that eating it was morally bankrupt. The rules are His and He can change them as he sees fit. God is immutable and unchangeable, but we humans are not therefore the rules we are to follow from God are structured by God to fit where we are at in our development. They are not imposed upon God by some outside force that requires a standard to which He must adhere.
Jesus told us He was the Son of God. You don't seem to give any credence to that statement so why worry about other things He reminded us of? If you told me, you were the Son of God and I was somewhat convinced that there was no evidence that there existed any god for you to be the son of, I certainly would not consider anything else you said as something I ought to consider worthwhile listening to. How do you decide which harm is necessary and which is not? If one's standard is based upon one's personal desire to not be harmed by others, is it really necessary to not harm others or is it more efficient to make oneself so powerful that others are not capable of causing one harm? Why would you find it helpful to emphasize with someone else's distress? Wouldn't it be more pragmatic to see what one can do to improve one's own condition in the world by whatever means one can? If that means harming others, as long as one can do so without negative consequences to oneself, shouldn't one take advantage of such an opportunity? If not. why not?
It depends on the extenuating circumstances. Hypothetically; if I were a soldier during WW-2 and I had an opportunity to kill Hitler, I would kill him even though under German law, that would be considered murder. I think we can all come up with scenarios where we can justify the killing of a person who has not been found guilty of a crime AKA murder.
But why should you not be able to murder your neighbor because he lets his dog poop in your yard?
Other than it being illegal? Because I don't think anybody deserves death for such an offense. That reminds me of the Theists who claim those who don't believe in their God deserves eternal torture in Hell; I'm okay with punishment for crime, but the punishment must fit the crime. Excessive punishment for a minor offense is immoral IMO.
I didn't say I followed the Golden Rule because Jesus told us we had to. I told you that He had reminded us to follow it. He wasn't the first or the only person to suggest it. And even if He had been, it's a good concept for living a moral life so why would someone reject it?
People would either think it would be ok or not. If the majority of people thought it was perfectly acceptable then societies wouldn't have evolved. They have so obviously the majority of us think it's wrong. Not simply because it's illegal but because we are built that way. Again, you can call that God's work if you like. But it's an entirely natural outcome.
It's definitely one that we share. You say God is responsible, I don't. But at least you are aware of where this sense of morality comes from. It's inbuilt.
Aye,
Then that’s the important question. Who built us, and why is this sense of morality part of the design?
Please think about how Hammster is clearly inconsistent
