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.
But I am not asking you to "tell me about your views." I am asking you to support your claims.It's a waste of time because that is not what you need from me. You're smart. You don't need me to tell you about my views. I've been doing that here for several years now.
How typical of you Jeremy. When you can't (or won't) engage in discussion about your claims, in desperation, you resort to preaching.You need for me to love you and to show you that you are special and that I care for your well being. You don't need arguments. You need the presence of God.
I posed the question to Sapiens as well, but I'll ask you too. If you built and programmed a robot full of emotions, and physical feelings, and aspirations, and dreams, and desires, you really feel that you have the moral authority to cause that robot pain and suffering simply because you created it?
I know right![emoji12] Don't get me started on StarTrek. It will inevitably turn into a debate on who was the better Captain....obviously Kirk.It always annoyed me a little bit that 1) non-planetfall spaceships in science fiction typically followed planet-bound designs (only one "up", as in the Enterprise NCC-1701) and that 2) after travelling thousands of light-years, they run into a previously unknown alien species that is also using the exact same direction for "up".
If only once they can encountered an alien spaceship where the alien's map of the galaxy was 180º or so off from the Federation's...
No, I understand the connection you are making, I just strongly, strongly disagree with it, especially after reading that. You just stated it would be moral to create a robot for the sake of basically torturing it, and that the torturing of it would be morally good. That's terrible. And if I have to believe that in order to believe that purpose and morals are connected, then I absolutely do not believe they are connected in any way. It isn't that I don't understand, it's that I am saying you are wrong.I think you are failing to understand the underlying connection between morality and purpose. Hypothetically, if you were to have created that certain robot for the sole purpose of causing it pain and suffering and there was no other person who was your equal to say otherwise, yes....it's pain and suffering would be good and you would have the authority to do so. Even if the robot didn't like it and thought it was cruel... in the end, that pain and suffering is good because it was the intended purpose. In this specific example, pleasure and joy would be objectively bad and pain and suffering would be objectively good.
...
Care to venture outside of your presuppositions?
I will take that as a "no".You are so insulated and committed to your godless views that you are bold enough to speak about dead bodies being frozen and later thawed out and resuscitated when the point is put to you that you and the people you rail against will suffer the same fate.
I fear for you. I fear that your mind is so depraved and so far gone that you don't even comprehend how hopelessly deceived and deluded you are.
I pray God is merciful to you. I pray you come to the place where you can in sincerity deal with the thing that has sent you down this long road of denial and self delusion and which has left you little better than Nietzsche was when he was lying in an insane asylum, raging and railing like a madman.
Yes, I'm sure you're enjoying yourself quite a lot right now.
I meant that without Jesus, they would go to hell. Yeah, then they get a "free-pass". In fact, it's the only pass.
Both matter.
What happens to the rapist when he dies if Christianity is false?
There's the rub.
The atheist philanthropist suffers the same fate as the serial rapist.
Gender is irrelevant. How they lived is irrelevant. What they said is irrelevant. What they believed is irrelevant. How much they gave or how much they took is irrelevant to the fact that they both die and cease to be.
And you really want to talk about justice?
I don't think you really want to go there.
I pray you become so broken and hopeless and helpless and so wretched in your own sight that you may realize how dreadful your state truly is. This is my prayer.
Hypothetically, if you were to have created that certain robot for the sole purpose of causing it pain and suffering and there was no other person who was your equal to say otherwise, yes....it's pain and suffering would be good and you would have the authority to do so. Even if the robot didn't like it and thought it was cruel... in the end, that pain and suffering is good because it was the intended purpose.
In this specific example, pleasure and joy would be objectively bad and pain and suffering would be objectively good.
I'm not answering any of your questions. Your time and mine is too valuable for me to waste on doing so.
Yes sir I am. Always ready.
...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.....
Please highlight where I used the word "morally good". Anyway....that is not the point. I agree that if someone created a "painbot" I would find that to be repulsive....but that is still not the point. The point to emphasize is where I said "there was nobody who was your equal to oppose you" . That alone makes the difference. Therefore in your senario, whatever twisted purpose that drove the creation of this "painbot" is OBJECTIVE (meaning it is factually true regardless of personal opinion). It would be an objective fact that the created purpose for this "painbot" is to cause it's suffering. It would be as if I invented a can opener and this new can opener did an amazing job opening cans. Who are you to tell me that I created a terrible can opener because it cannot drive nails? It is an objective fact that the created purpose of my invention is to open cans not driving nails. So by you saying that it is a terrible nail driver would technically be true, saying that it is a terrible product would still be wrong because it's created purpose was not to drive nails.No, I understand the connection you are making, I just strongly, strongly disagree with it, especially after reading that. You just stated it would be moral to create a robot for the sake of basically torturing it, and that the torturing of it would be morally good. That's terrible. And if I have to believe that in order to believe that purpose and morals are connected, then I absolutely do not believe they are connected in any way. It isn't that I don't understand, it's that I am saying you are wrong.
It doesn't even make sense to think that they are connected. If I build a car, and it's purpose it to get me from point A to point B, and then it does, you're saying my car is morally good. Or that I did a morally good thing by driving it.
James 2:14-26New International Version (NIV)Yes, it is very entertaining.
Right, so it matters not how you actually behave and treat people (or other sentient beings). What matters is what you believe (on faith, of all things).
Wich means that there is no real moral accountability in your theology.
James 2:14-26New International Version (NIV)
Faith and Deeds
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[a]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
People can be easily mislead, especially Christians, to believe is "easy believeism". That as long as you believe, you are saved. Thus eliminating any accountability to your actions. If someone claimed to believe in Jesus yet lived their lives as if He never existed would be a recipe for destruction. Yes, even a murder can convert and repent of his wrong doings and be saved. But if this murderer simply confessed that Jesus is God and continued to murder, he would be living in unrepentant sin so his faith means nothing.
Either put up or shut up.The exhortation to "be ready" is not synonymous with "answer every question put to you".
Do you understand?
1. Can a serial killing rapist get to heaven? If yes, how?
2. Can someone who dies as an atheist, no matter how he behaved during his life, get to heaven? If not, why not?
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?