No objective grounding for evil?

[DogmaHunter]

That does not work. You do not know what is bad to others.

"Treat others as you want to be treated".
"Don't do unto others that which you don't wish to be done to you".

 

[juvenissun]

"Treat others as you want to be treated".
"Don't do unto others that which you don't wish to be done to you".

The Bible says that. But,

I like spicy hot food, do you like it? Should I treat you hot food at my home? There got to be something I like but you don't like.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That does not work. You do not know what is bad to others.

Of course it works. I don't have to know what is bad to others to function in society.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The Bible says that. But,

I like spicy hot food, do you like it? Should I treat you hot food at my home? There got to be something I like but you don't like.

You're able to speak to other human beings, right?

 

[juvenissun]

You're able to speak to other human beings, right?

I can read the Bible to anyone who care to listen.
If desirable, I can even explain the Bible a little bit.

 

[juvenissun]

Of course it works. I don't have to know what is bad to others to function in society.

Only if you have a bigger gun.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I can read the Bible to anyone who care to listen.
If desirable, I can even explain the Bible a little bit.

Good to know. You're also able to ask someone whether they like spicy food, correct?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Only if you have a bigger gun.

Complete non sequitur. This doesn't speak to what I was saying at all.

 

[juvenissun]

Complete non sequitur. This doesn't speak to what I was saying at all.

You did not say much.

 

[juvenissun]

Good to know. You're also able to ask someone whether they like spicy food, correct?

I like it, you should also like it. Why should I ask?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You did not say much.

I said I did not need to know what is bad to others to function in society.

Which is true...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I like it, you should also like it. Why should I ask?

Why should I like something just because you do? That's illogical.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It is not new at all. I knew all that.

However, once we go over the details of Gen 1, then all the problems will be resolved.

Ok, please explain how you reconcile two stories that say things were created in a different order from each other using different methods?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Such summaries, or recapitulation statements occur throughout the bible. The problem is that of the tense of certain verbs. For example God brought to Adam the animals that he had made previously. The verb 'made' is presented in the present tense even though the event occurred sometime previous. The Hebrew has some idiosyncrasies.

That's simply not correct. Any biblical scholar will acknowledge that Genesis 1 was the creation myth of a particular sect, and Genesis 2 was a separate creation myth from another sect. When the book of genesis was completed, both myths were included.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The Bible says that. But,

I like spicy hot food, do you like it? Should I treat you hot food at my home? There got to be something I like but you don't like.

That's a non sequitur. Your food choices is irrelevant to what is good and evil.

His point was if you didn't know what other people wanted or didn't want, then one of Jesus's most famous lines is nonsensical.

 

[juvenissun]

That's a non sequitur. Your food choices is irrelevant to what is good and evil.

His point was if you didn't know what other people wanted or didn't want, then one of Jesus's most famous lines is nonsensical.

Lord Jesus says what we need, not what we want.

 

[juvenissun]

Ok, please explain how you reconcile two stories that say things were created in a different order from each other using different methods?

For example?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Lord Jesus says what we need, not what we want.

Wrong, he tells you to treat others how you would want to be treated yourself.

 

[juvenissun]

Wrong, he tells you to treat others how you would want to be treated yourself.

OK. What is wrong with that? My spicy food analogy does not fit here. Simple description certainly does not mean to be inclusive. (I forgot what was the argument).

 

[Dave Ellis]

OK. What is wrong with that? My spicy food analogy does not fit here. Simple description certainly does not mean to be inclusive. (I forgot what was the argument).

You said you can't know what is bad for others.

The rebuttal was the golden rule, do unto others as you would want done to yourself. That rule depends on the fact that we know what is good for us, and what's bad for us and we can extrapolate that information and apply it to others. To clear up any differences, we can communicate with each other if you are doing something someone doesn't like. So yes, you can know what's bad for others.... in fact, it's not hard at all to find out.

You then for some reason brought up spicy food which is a red herring. We are talking actions, you are trying to deflect by bringing up food preferences. It simply does not apply.

The relevant comparison in this situation would be don't force someone to eat spicy food if they don't want to, because you wouldn't want to be forced to eat something you don't like either. Or, if they do like spicy food, perhaps share some with them, because you would appreciate people sharing with you.

Those are actions, not taste preferences.

Lastly you asserted Jesus said what we need, not what we want, which is also wrong. The golden rule is treat others as how you would want to be treated yourself.