[quote]Cortes wrote:
So you couldn’t find it, eh? Please refer to this post and refrain from pulling the victim card in the future when you are accused of not having read the Bible as you claimed. [/quote]
All right, first, I never said it could be found. I know not everyone goes by the “Sunday” Sabbath, but that’s the common understanding and everyone knows what I’m talking about when I say “Sunday”. Not so had I said “Saturday”. Second, the only “victim card” I’ve pulled is at the ridiculous ad hominem attacks made on me in lieu of an actual argument.
Yeah, no I did get that the first time, I just thought I missed something because that’s stupid.
So, if I’m clear on this; “God”=“good” and “good”=“burn the queers”, therefore God burns queers… If God’s version of “good” is this, then God has one fucked up sense of morality. If this is “good”, then “good” is sadistic, ugly and nonsensical. If God’s only reason for making homosexuality a sin is “It’s in my nature to hate the gays, and I’m good, therefore being gay is immoral…”, then God seem more interested in his own ego than in logic.
And before you say it, yes I know there is more to God’s sense of “good” than condemning homosexuals.
I guess this is where our conversation ends. There simply can be no further debate when you define that which is moral by everything God says and does, unquestioned. I can point to all the killings God has ordered/carried out, but if you are just going to say God is good because God is good, there’s no point so I’m done. I’m not going to argue circular logic.
For example, if one makes it a moral rule that a gain in net utility is good, and that which results in a net gain for a large amount of people is worth a net loss for an individual, then you’ve just justified gang rape. If you make no such rule, you can just look at the situation and see a few sick individuals in need of some kind of psychological analysis. [/quote]
No. Sorry. You can’t.
If you have no rules and there is no good or bad, you can’t even call these rapists “sick,” because that implies a value judgement (now you’ll try and explain how it doesn’t).
With the worldview you are proposing, the most you can hope to say about these guys is that they are doing what they are doing.
Period.
[/quote]
I’m saying they are “sick” in a literal sense. They have a mental sickness. In a vacuum, no, I can’t judge them, but knowing how a regular psyche operates one could clinically define these people as “sick”.
[quote]pat wrote:
Uh no., simply an act or decisions value is determined by how many positive or negative outcomes reached a larger or smaller populous. http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/util.htm
[/quote]
… Are you a utilitarian?
Great, so rule utilitarianism is slightly more consistent than act utilitarianism. It’s still far from perfect. The “regression argument” still applies to it, for example. Why “must” we do that which results in the most utility? The only honest answer I can see aside from “cus GAWD says so!” is “because it’s my (and other’s) personal preference.”
Well, great, but why do you feel the need to justify your preferences? Simply preferring to do things that result in the most utility is enough reason to do that which results in the most utility as far as I’m concerned. And by not making it a rule, you can not do that which results in the most utility for occasions where such an outcome is not preferred without the fear of being logically inconsistent.
[/quote]
To apply one ethical philosophy to all circumstances is ignorant. Different circumstances require different approaches. In emergency situations it may be necessary to be utilitarian for you need to make the decision that has the best outcome for the most people. If you have time you may be able to take a utilitarian and Golden rule approach.
[/quote]
I agree.
I just don’t call it “morality” if it isn’t proclaimed as universal.
Ok, so can I like fuck your Mom and make you watch? After all, it’s not a ‘bad thing’?[/quote]
Behold, the championed “maturity” of my elders…[/quote]
Instead of weaseling out of answering yet again, why not entertain his question as logical exercise, however absurd it may appear?
Pat and I, at least, can answer with a simple “no.”[/quote]
He’s not asking for an answer, he’s just trying to irk me with this sort of nonsense.
[/quote]
Yup, and it worked too
Oh no, no weaseling here. There is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’, it’s all arbitrary based on societal norms that evolved from, uh, I guess thin ass air, in your case.
So then the answers is ‘yes’. Fucking your mom and making you watch is not a ‘bad thing’. Or would you prefer "Making loving’ or ‘Doing it’?
[/quote]
… I’m not “mad” because you said something and I got offended by it, It’s more like I’m annoyed that you pose a question where neither “yes” nor “no” are adequate answers, seemingly aware of this while you did it.
Yes, it’s not a “bad” thing, but it’s also not a “good” thing. It’s just a “thing”.[/quote]
Bullshit, you got busted and you know it. Suck it up and cope.[/quote]
Busted? Even if what you said offended me, are you saying it’s impossible to not want something to happen without labelling it immoral? [/quote]
Yep busted. It got your gourd, it was meant to.
I wouldn’t over analyze it to much. I’d friggin kill anyone who tried to hurt my mother… It’s a natural protective response.[/quote]
What exactly did you “bust”? You “tricked” me into admitting that I don’t like doing things against my will… congratulations? =/
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tig, baby, you have NOT read the Bible several times if AT ALL. That much is plainly obvious.
Rarely do I agree with Mak on PWI but he was dead-on correctomundo in regards to you speaking with forked tongue, Geronimo.[/quote]
I’ve read the bible twice in it’s entirety and then in bits and pieces since. I really don’t see what I’ve said that suggests I haven’t even read the book once… -_-
My guess is this is an accusation you guys make often simply to make your opponents out to be too ignorant to have a valid point. [/quote]
Saying ignorant ass shit like this:
"I know that the bible doesn’t specifically say “no Sunday labour”, it’s called the “Sabbath” and I know that some people say the Sabbath is Saturday, since that is the actual seventh day whereas Sunday is the first… the actual day itself is unimportant. The point is why does any such day need to be where working can earn you a spot in Hell? "
Makes it difficult to believe you know anything about the bible you haven’t picked up on www.athiestcirclejerk.org.
The bible makes no mention of Saturday Sabbath either, nor did it ever make mention of anyone violating it going to hell. Don’t believe me?
Give me the book and verse and I will email you a cookie.[/quote]
Well, the “day of rest” was the seventh day, which is Saturday. If you don’t consider the original seven days to be literal (I wouldn’t), then it doesn’t really matter which day you do it on. This makes sense to me since Jews held the Sabbath on Saturday while Christians changed it to Sunday and God hasn’t corrected anyone yet, so it seems that God doesn’t care which day you put it on, so long as it gets done.
It IS, however, one of the ten commandments. If consistently breaking this rule without repenting doesn’t get you into Hell, then what would?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I know not everyone goes by the “Sunday” Sabbath, but that’s the common understanding and everyone knows what I’m talking about when I say “Sunday”. [/quote]
Not even Christians consider Sunday the Sabbath. That’s the “Lord’s Day” or something, relating to the crucification and (according to Christians) resurrection of Jesus.
Christians, being not Jewish (generally) are not subject to the Mt. Sinai covenant, which contains the restrictions regarding Shabbos.
Shabbos is the last day of the week. And more specifically, it’s Sunday Friday to Sunset Saturday.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tig, baby, you have NOT read the Bible several times if AT ALL. That much is plainly obvious.
Rarely do I agree with Mak on PWI but he was dead-on correctomundo in regards to you speaking with forked tongue, Geronimo.[/quote]
I’ve read the bible twice in it’s entirety and then in bits and pieces since. I really don’t see what I’ve said that suggests I haven’t even read the book once… -_-
My guess is this is an accusation you guys make often simply to make your opponents out to be too ignorant to have a valid point. [/quote]
Saying ignorant ass shit like this:
"I know that the bible doesn’t specifically say “no Sunday labour”, it’s called the “Sabbath” and I know that some people say the Sabbath is Saturday, since that is the actual seventh day whereas Sunday is the first… the actual day itself is unimportant. The point is why does any such day need to be where working can earn you a spot in Hell? "
Makes it difficult to believe you know anything about the bible you haven’t picked up on www.athiestcirclejerk.org.
The bible makes no mention of Saturday Sabbath either, nor did it ever make mention of anyone violating it going to hell. Don’t believe me?
Give me the book and verse and I will email you a cookie.[/quote]
Well, the “day of rest” was the seventh day, which is Saturday. If you don’t consider the original seven days to be literal (I wouldn’t), then it doesn’t really matter which day you do it on. This makes sense to me since Jews held the Sabbath on Saturday while Christians changed it to Sunday and God hasn’t corrected anyone yet, so it seems that God doesn’t care which day you put it on, so long as it gets done.
It IS, however, one of the ten commandments. If consistently breaking this rule without repenting doesn’t get you into Hell, then what would?[/quote]
See this is why we suspect you of actually not reading the bible. First the Sabbath is Friday evening to Saturday evening currently. The Law books did not specify the day, because in the ye olde days holidays ended in Sabbaths like the feast of Booths or pass over, the Sabbath actually moved around the week. That was because after a holiday Sabbath, the next Sabbath was 6 more days away.
Breaking the sabbath repeatedly is a sin, but how God judges, we don’t know. We know what you said was in the bible, is not in the bible.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I know not everyone goes by the “Sunday” Sabbath, but that’s the common understanding and everyone knows what I’m talking about when I say “Sunday”. [/quote]
Not even Christians consider Sunday the Sabbath. That’s the “Lord’s Day” or something, relating to the crucification and (according to Christians) resurrection of Jesus.
Christians, being not Jewish (generally) are not subject to the Mt. Sinai covenant, which contains the restrictions regarding Shabbos.
Shabbos is the last day of the week. And more specifically, it’s Sunday Friday to Sunset Saturday.
[/quote]
Technically we hold Sunday as the Sabbath under the New Covenant.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
No… I still don’t see the logical justification for sending homosexuals to Hell.
[/quote]
Uh, where in the bible does it say homosexuals are going to hell?[/quote]
Do un-repenting sinners NOT go to Hell? If homosexuals don’t go to Hell, then what’s the consequence?[/quote]
I just said it’s not in the Bible. The act of homosexuality is a sin, being attracted to the same sex is not. However, how God judges we don’t know. That’s between that person and God and noone else.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
So you couldn’t find it, eh? Please refer to this post and refrain from pulling the victim card in the future when you are accused of not having read the Bible as you claimed. [/quote]
All right, first, I never said it could be found. I know not everyone goes by the “Sunday” Sabbath, but that’s the common understanding and everyone knows what I’m talking about when I say “Sunday”. Not so had I said “Saturday”. Second, the only “victim card” I’ve pulled is at the ridiculous ad hominem attacks made on me in lieu of an actual argument.
Yeah, no I did get that the first time, I just thought I missed something because that’s stupid.
So, if I’m clear on this; “God”=“good” and “good”=“burn the queers”, therefore God burns queers… If God’s version of “good” is this, then God has one fucked up sense of morality. If this is “good”, then “good” is sadistic, ugly and nonsensical. If God’s only reason for making homosexuality a sin is “It’s in my nature to hate the gays, and I’m good, therefore being gay is immoral…”, then God seem more interested in his own ego than in logic.
And before you say it, yes I know there is more to God’s sense of “good” than condemning homosexuals.
I guess this is where our conversation ends. There simply can be no further debate when you define that which is moral by everything God says and does, unquestioned. I can point to all the killings God has ordered/carried out, but if you are just going to say God is good because God is good, there’s no point so I’m done. I’m not going to argue circular logic. [/quote]
You say you are getting it, but you are most certainly not.
Again: The ACT of FORNICATION is the issue.I know it makes it sound like you have a point when you throw around phrases like “burn the queers,” but you don’t.
There are a whole host of reasons why the sex act outside of marriage is prohibited that have both immediate and collateral societal consequences. They make sense when viewed without the lens of immediate selfish individual personal gratification fogging one’s perception of the issues.
But first,we are assuming a Christian cosmos, are we not?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
No… I still don’t see the logical justification for sending homosexuals to Hell.
[/quote]
Uh, where in the bible does it say homosexuals are going to hell?[/quote]
Do un-repenting sinners NOT go to Hell? If homosexuals don’t go to Hell, then what’s the consequence?[/quote]
See, you actually do know the answers to these questions. It is EXACTLY correct that unrepentant sinners DO go to Hell. However, this fact also hints at duplicity on your part, or at least self-delusion. Because if you know what the word unrepentant means in the context of Christianity, then you should know that there is nothing at all sadistic by any normal measure in such a person going to Hell rather than Heaven. The reason being that you must first CHOOSE to reject God. In other words, you must consciously and with full knowledge of what you are doing choose to become an enemy of God by engaging in an act which he has expressly forbidden. Then you must die in that state.
An analogy: Bim and Ben are bitter enemies who live in the same town. All of the people in the town are poor, except for Ben, who has a magnificent palace. One winter, a wildfire rages out of control, destroying Bim’s house and crops, and burning up his life’s savings he’d hidden in his attic. He has nothing, as damage to the town is pretty much total, there is basically no one who can help him except for Ben, whose palace was untouched by the fire. Ben, being a caring person, decides to forget his differences with Bim and offers him a room and food at his palace. All he has to do is to agree in kind, to forget all past differences and accept the offer to come and stay.
However, Bim is stubborn and prideful. He will NOT put those differences aside. He will NOT accept the offer of room and sustenance. He holds on to his fear and anger, even though rejecting Ben at this time will certainly result in his death from exposure and starvation.
Now. Is Ben sadistic for not forcing Bim into his palace? Is Bim just a victim of circumstances who should be allowed full access to Ben’s palace despite any differences they have? Please tell me, what is “fair” in this scenario?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
So you couldn’t find it, eh? Please refer to this post and refrain from pulling the victim card in the future when you are accused of not having read the Bible as you claimed. [/quote]
All right, first, I never said it could be found. I know not everyone goes by the “Sunday” Sabbath, but that’s the common understanding and everyone knows what I’m talking about when I say “Sunday”. Not so had I said “Saturday”. Second, the only “victim card” I’ve pulled is at the ridiculous ad hominem attacks made on me in lieu of an actual argument.
Yeah, no I did get that the first time, I just thought I missed something because that’s stupid.
So, if I’m clear on this; “God”=“good” and “good”=“burn the queers”, therefore God burns queers… If God’s version of “good” is this, then God has one fucked up sense of morality. If this is “good”, then “good” is sadistic, ugly and nonsensical. If God’s only reason for making homosexuality a sin is “It’s in my nature to hate the gays, and I’m good, therefore being gay is immoral…”, then God seem more interested in his own ego than in logic.
And before you say it, yes I know there is more to God’s sense of “good” than condemning homosexuals.
I guess this is where our conversation ends. There simply can be no further debate when you define that which is moral by everything God says and does, unquestioned. I can point to all the killings God has ordered/carried out, but if you are just going to say God is good because God is good, there’s no point so I’m done. I’m not going to argue circular logic. [/quote]
You say you are getting it, but you are most certainly not.
Again: The ACT of FORNICATION is the issue.I know it makes it sound like you have a point when you throw around phrases like “burn the queers,” but you don’t.
There are a whole host of reasons why the sex act outside of marriage is prohibited that have both immediate and collateral societal consequences. They make sense when viewed without the lens of immediate selfish individual personal gratification fogging one’s perception of the issues.
But first,we are assuming a Christian cosmos, are we not?
[/quote]
Been awhile, Cortes. Good to see things haven’t changed much.
I think the verses Tiger Time was looking for in regards to the Sabbath are these:
Exodus 31:12-15
[i]And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.[/i]
If what God decrees is perfectly good/just/rational/etc., then it follows that having the death penalty for working on the Sabbath is perfectly good/just/rational/etc.
If God’s decrees, which must flow from his perfectly good/just/rational/etc. nature, are not arbitrary but fair and rational, what are the “immediate and collateral societal consequences” for which work on the Sabbath is prohibited?
Just in case someone’s tries to claim the above order was never carried out:
Numbers 15:32-36
[i]And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.[/i]
Assuming a Christian Cosmos, would having a community stone a person to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath be considered moral or immoral?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
No… I still don’t see the logical justification for sending homosexuals to Hell.
[/quote]
Uh, where in the bible does it say homosexuals are going to hell?[/quote]
Do un-repenting sinners NOT go to Hell? If homosexuals don’t go to Hell, then what’s the consequence?[/quote]
See, you actually do know the answers to these questions. It is EXACTLY correct that unrepentant sinners DO go to Hell. However, this fact also hints at duplicity on your part, or at least self-delusion. Because if you know what the word unrepentant means in the context of Christianity, then you should know that there is nothing at all sadistic by any normal measure in such a person going to Hell rather than Heaven. The reason being that you must first CHOOSE to reject God. In other words, you must consciously and with full knowledge of what you are doing choose to become an enemy of God by engaging in an act which he has expressly forbidden. Then you must die in that state.
An analogy: Bim and Ben are bitter enemies who live in the same town. All of the people in the town are poor, except for Ben, who has a magnificent palace. One winter, a wildfire rages out of control, destroying Bim’s house and crops, and burning up his life’s savings he’d hidden in his attic. He has nothing, as damage to the town is pretty much total, there is basically no one who can help him except for Ben, whose palace was untouched by the fire. Ben, being a caring person, decides to forget his differences with Bim and offers him a room and food at his palace. All he has to do is to agree in kind, to forget all past differences and accept the offer to come and stay.
However, Bim is stubborn and prideful. He will NOT put those differences aside. He will NOT accept the offer of room and sustenance. He holds on to his fear and anger, even though rejecting Ben at this time will certainly result in his death from exposure and starvation.
Now. Is Ben sadistic for not forcing Bim into his palace? Is Bim just a victim of circumstances who should be allowed full access to Ben’s palace despite any differences they have? Please tell me, what is “fair” in this scenario?
[/quote]
Well, the “Christian” thing would be for Ben to allow Bim full access to his palace without preconditions, would it not?
That said, I think I can come up with a more applicable scenario.
Let’s take Forlife, a prominent member of this board who happens to be an unrepentant homosexual.
He lives a happy life in sin with his partner and family, and by most accounts seems like a swell guy.
One day, he suffers a tragic accident during fornication (one of the aforementioned immediate consequences of sin) and dies.
Is Forlife on his way to heaven or hell in this scenario?
Aside: My apologies to Forlife for using him in this scenario without his permission.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
No… I still don’t see the logical justification for sending homosexuals to Hell.
[/quote]
Uh, where in the bible does it say homosexuals are going to hell?[/quote]
Do un-repenting sinners NOT go to Hell? If homosexuals don’t go to Hell, then what’s the consequence?[/quote]
See, you actually do know the answers to these questions. It is EXACTLY correct that unrepentant sinners DO go to Hell. However, this fact also hints at duplicity on your part, or at least self-delusion. Because if you know what the word unrepentant means in the context of Christianity, then you should know that there is nothing at all sadistic by any normal measure in such a person going to Hell rather than Heaven. The reason being that you must first CHOOSE to reject God. In other words, you must consciously and with full knowledge of what you are doing choose to become an enemy of God by engaging in an act which he has expressly forbidden. Then you must die in that state.
An analogy: Bim and Ben are bitter enemies who live in the same town. All of the people in the town are poor, except for Ben, who has a magnificent palace. One winter, a wildfire rages out of control, destroying Bim’s house and crops, and burning up his life’s savings he’d hidden in his attic. He has nothing, as damage to the town is pretty much total, there is basically no one who can help him except for Ben, whose palace was untouched by the fire. Ben, being a caring person, decides to forget his differences with Bim and offers him a room and food at his palace. All he has to do is to agree in kind, to forget all past differences and accept the offer to come and stay.
However, Bim is stubborn and prideful. He will NOT put those differences aside. He will NOT accept the offer of room and sustenance. He holds on to his fear and anger, even though rejecting Ben at this time will certainly result in his death from exposure and starvation.
Now. Is Ben sadistic for not forcing Bim into his palace? Is Bim just a victim of circumstances who should be allowed full access to Ben’s palace despite any differences they have? Please tell me, what is “fair” in this scenario?
[/quote]
Actually, a deliberate act of not repenting is to snub God which actually, a resistance of Grace when grace is freely offered which is in the realm of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
If you are laying on your death bed and you deliberately give God the finger, he didn’t send you to hell, you asked to go there.
Would you want somebody at your house that doesn’t want to be there?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
No… I still don’t see the logical justification for sending homosexuals to Hell.
[/quote]
Uh, where in the bible does it say homosexuals are going to hell?[/quote]
Do un-repenting sinners NOT go to Hell? If homosexuals don’t go to Hell, then what’s the consequence?[/quote]
See, you actually do know the answers to these questions. It is EXACTLY correct that unrepentant sinners DO go to Hell. However, this fact also hints at duplicity on your part, or at least self-delusion. Because if you know what the word unrepentant means in the context of Christianity, then you should know that there is nothing at all sadistic by any normal measure in such a person going to Hell rather than Heaven. The reason being that you must first CHOOSE to reject God. In other words, you must consciously and with full knowledge of what you are doing choose to become an enemy of God by engaging in an act which he has expressly forbidden. Then you must die in that state.
An analogy: Bim and Ben are bitter enemies who live in the same town. All of the people in the town are poor, except for Ben, who has a magnificent palace. One winter, a wildfire rages out of control, destroying Bim’s house and crops, and burning up his life’s savings he’d hidden in his attic. He has nothing, as damage to the town is pretty much total, there is basically no one who can help him except for Ben, whose palace was untouched by the fire. Ben, being a caring person, decides to forget his differences with Bim and offers him a room and food at his palace. All he has to do is to agree in kind, to forget all past differences and accept the offer to come and stay.
However, Bim is stubborn and prideful. He will NOT put those differences aside. He will NOT accept the offer of room and sustenance. He holds on to his fear and anger, even though rejecting Ben at this time will certainly result in his death from exposure and starvation.
Now. Is Ben sadistic for not forcing Bim into his palace? Is Bim just a victim of circumstances who should be allowed full access to Ben’s palace despite any differences they have? Please tell me, what is “fair” in this scenario?
[/quote]
Well, the “Christian” thing would be for Ben to allow Bim full access to his palace without preconditions, would it not?
That said, I think I can come up with a more applicable scenario.
Let’s take Forlife, a prominent member of this board who happens to be an unrepentant homosexual.
He lives a happy life in sin with his partner and family, and by most accounts seems like a swell guy.
One day, he suffers a tragic accident during fornication (one of the aforementioned immediate consequences of sin) and dies.
Is Forlife on his way to heaven or hell in this scenario?
Aside: My apologies to Forlife for using him in this scenario without his permission. [/quote]
Always glad to be the scapegoat for morality debates
Aside from the arbitrariness of certain acts being considered sinful (which cause no harm to anyone) and certain acts being considered moral (which actually do harm people), I’m puzzled by the arbitrariness of death. If someone lives a wicked life, hurting thousands of people in the process, yet truly repents when a priest visits him on his deathbed, why should he enjoy eternal bliss compared to a “sinner” who never hurt a soul, yet was in a different hospital room and died before the priest could get to him?
…Aside from the arbitrariness of certain acts being considered sinful (which cause no harm to anyone) and certain acts being considered moral (which actually do harm people), I’m puzzled by the arbitrariness of death. If someone lives a wicked life, hurting thousands of people in the process, yet truly repents when a priest visits him on his deathbed, why should he enjoy eternal bliss compared to a “sinner” who never hurt a soul, yet was in a different hospital room and died before the priest could get to him?
Seriously?[/quote]
Ephesians 2: 8 - 9[/quote]
If people are saved through grace, why weren’t both men visited by the priest instead of only the first?
