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.
Yes, using deadly force in self defense that saves a human life is morally good in the eyes of God.So lemme see if I've got this straight! If you lie to em, you'll burn in hell for that because lying is objectively wrong! But if you shoot them in the head and blow their brains out, well...... that's okay. You joking' right??? Bruh-man's got jokes! (LOL) No; all joking aside; ARE YOU SERIOUS???
Really? Which scripture says lying under such conditions is wrong, but deadly force under such conditions is okay?Yes, using deadly force in self defense that saves a human life is morally good in the eyes of God.
God wants a loving relationship with humans, and that can only occur if we freely choose to follow Him. True love can only occur if it is freely chosen. And by us loving Him, He can destroy evil forever which is His ultimate goal.What's the point of free will then? When God only wants people to follow his commands then it is pretty stupid to introduce a system that gives people the ability to disobey these commands.
So why did he create us with a natural desire to reject him, when he could have created us with a natural desire to embrace him?God wants a loving relationship with humans, and that can only occur if we freely choose to follow Him. True love can only occur if it is freely chosen.
No, they are acting on logic, as I demonstrated above.Ed1wolf said: ↑
All they have to do is take one more step using the a basic law of logic called Causality. And as I posted earlier some do.
ken: Well when those who do take that step take it, they are acting on faith, not science and they should make that distinction clear so there is no confusion concerning what they say.
Logic can be subjective; logic to one person is often illogical to another. But whatever the case, when they make that leap they are not acting on science.No, they are acting on logic, as I demonstrated above.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, just because most people dont believe in or want to live according to an objective moral standard does not mean that it doesn't exist.
ken: Actually judging by the way you seem to describe objective, everybody can have an objective moral standard; each a little different from the other, that they choose to live by.
And also Evolution ends as I stated earlier. So to go back to my main point death and suffering are a natural part of evolution and without them Evolution cannot occur. So why are you against them?Ed1wolf said: ↑
How? Evolution requires there to be an opening in an ecological niche for a new species to come into existence, if the ancestral species which would occupy that niche does not die out then the new species would not have a niche to survive in.
ken: After reading it again, I suspect I misunderstood your question. let me put it this way; if the ancestor species lives forever, and the new species are constantly dying out, the new species will probably never get a chance to develop, thus leaving you with only the species that never dies.
No, they can think they have an objective moral standard, but only Christians and people that try to live according to the Christian God's moral standards actually have an objective moral standard.
And also Evolution ends as I stated earlier. So to go back to my main point death and suffering are a natural part of evolution and without them Evolution cannot occur. So why are you against them?
Yes, some Nazis claimed to be Christians however the ones that did, generally came from churches that were theologically liberal and therefore rejected many teachings of the bible including moral teachings such as obviously loving your enemies. As far as Hitler you obviously did not read my earlier posts where I proved that Hitler hated Christianity in private. He claimed to not hate it in his propaganda like Mein Kampf. But even as a child, his best friend said that he quit going to mass against his mothers wishes. He also said as an adult that "I myself am a heathen to the core." Hitler also said the "heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity." And there are many quotes of his that show that he believed that nature was god and gods laws were the laws of nature, so all the evidence points to him as being a scientific pantheist. He greatly admired science and what he considered rationality. Actually Pantheists dont believe in multiple gods, they believe that Nature is god. There is only one god and it is everything.Nope wrong again - Hitler and most Nazis believed that Jesus was Gods son, they change the nature of Jesus to be more of a warrior but he was Gods son. That is completely incompatible with Pantheism! After all Pantheist Gods don't go around having children, do they?
riv: The Nazis did not believe that morality was subjective - they believed that it was cast in iron - their way or the high way. The words "Oh you may have a point there, let me go back to my Nazi party and discuss it" are not ones commonly heard around Nazis.
riv: The very idea of an master race is inherently linked to God, as a conscious being, one race is superior to all the others as pre-defined by the creator.
riv: Here is your biggest mistake - Dr. Gresham Machen talks about he came across German liberalism in academic circles, Not (here's the important bit) Not the general populace.
So you take the word of someone claiming to be Hitlers confidant over what Hitler actually said in his books, his speeches, and what he did in public? Wow! Talking about grasping at straws.As far as Hitler you obviously did not read my earlier posts where I proved that Hitler hated Christianity in private. He claimed to not hate it in his propaganda like Mein Kampf. But even as a child, his best friend said that he quit going to mass against his mothers wishes. He also said as an adult that "I myself am a heathen to the core." Hitler also said the "heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity."
That’s what YOU say; but according to them there was an objectively rational reason to choose the Aryan race as superior to all others; they even had faulty science to confirm their beliefs. The point is, they believed morality was objective, and backed up by science.Actually you are correct, they believed that natures laws (their morality esp. Hitler's) were objective and one of the most important was that only the strong should survive. What I meant was even though they believed that their morality was objective and backed by science, it was in fact subjective, because they subjectively chose their own race to be the superior race favored by nature and their god, but there was no objectively rational reason to choose their own race as the one nature favored.
It all depends on where you look; remember God considered the Jews his chosen people, and there were instances when their enemies (Midianites, Amalekites, and others) were not loved but slaughteredNot according to the Christian God, the Christian God teaches that all humans are created in His image and all are equally loved even His enemies.
In what way?Ed1wolf said: ↑
Hitler claimed to use all those same things to make his moral decisions, so why were his conclusions different from yours?
ken: Because his logic, reason, and empathy is different than mine.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
And since you both use the same processes, what gives you the right to condemn his conclusions?
ken: Just as he has a right to disagree with me, I have a right to disagree with him.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
If they think that their morality is objective then they definitely ARE wrong.
ken: I agree! But then so are you. The problem is; neither of you know it! You all think that you and those who think like you are the only ones with a basis for objective morality.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Ok then you have no objectively rational basis for condemning someone who kills babies.
ken: Of course not! I have a subjective rational basis for condemning someone who kills babies.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Of course, natural selection is the mechanism of evolution and most scientists agree it operates on humans AND animals and is still in operation causing us to evolve. So you deny this?
ken: Can you give an example of natural selection that is being applied to humans?
No, since I am not an evolutionist I dont believe that it operates on humans or animals at least not in a macroevolutionary way. I do believe it has operated on humans in microevolutionary ways such as height and skin color.
And there are many quotes of his that show that he believed that nature was god and gods laws were the laws of nature, so all the evidence points to him as being a scientific pantheist. He greatly admired science and what he considered rationality. Actually Pantheists dont believe in multiple gods, they believe that Nature is god. There is only one god and it is everything.
abortion was legal in the 1920s in Germany, .
Germany was the first western nation with a Gay rights movement that also started in early 20th century
The Ten Commandments, "You shall not bear false witness." Just before Christ was arrested he told his disciples to buy a sword. This was for self defense in case the Romans tried to arrest them and execute them. It was only His time to be arrested and executed, it was not their time yet. They needed to remain alive to initiate the beginning of His Church.Really? Which scripture says lying under such conditions is wrong, but deadly force under such conditions is okay?
I believe its God who saved the disciples so they could preach the Gospel. The apostles didn't actually carry arms, they had God as their protector.The Ten Commandments, "You shall not bear false witness." Just before Christ was arrested he told his disciples to buy a sword. This was for self defense in case the Romans tried to arrest them and execute them. It was only His time to be arrested and executed, it was not their time yet. They needed to remain alive to initiate the beginning of His Church.
He didn't create us with a natural desire to reject Him. We freely chose to reject Him.So why did he create us with a natural desire to reject him, when he could have created us with a natural desire to embrace him?
His empathy is only for the Aryan race; mine is for all people. His logic and reason is aimed at what is best for the Aryan race, mine is for all people.In what way?
Hitler gave himself the right to attack USA, and Britain, and attempting to live out his conclusions, and the USA and Britain gave ourselves the right to defend ourselves by destroying Nazi GermanyDo you think the USA and Britain did the right thing to fight him and destroy Nazi Germany? If so, why? Doesn't he have a right to live out his conclusions?
Actually he pretty much used the same faulty logic you used; the only difference is your moral base is Yahweh, and his moral base was the improvement of mankind. Other than the different moral bases, it appears you both got your information from the same book.But I can demonstrate it logically, they cannot.
Legally, people are condemned by breaking the law; not moral issues.Ok, then those are just your feelings not based on anything real. Someone should not be condemned just based on subjective feelings.
Can you provide a scientist who claims modern man acts according to natural selection?No, since I am not an evolutionist I dont believe that it operates on humans or animals at least not in a macroevolutionary way. I do believe it has operated on humans in microevolutionary ways such as height and skin color.
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?