Continue the debate in here

Page 3 of 15 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9 ... 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:29 am

At what point did I say people should be sent to prison for not forgiving?

Forgivness in not a moral action or statement. And even i fit were, non-believers can do it too.

I've been making the point that if somebody uses the Christian religion
to further their cause and their actions go directly against what the
Bible teaches...

Augustine and Aquinas used murder and torture not to benefit themselves, but to spread the gospel and eliminate heratics.

But if somebody is given the chance to forgive, they should.

Or else? If they don't are they immoral?

Well for one thing. If a women was raped and then left to die in the
street and did in fact die, you would say God wasn't very loving by
letting that person die. Marriage of a rape victim was the best of a
very bad situation. Rape shouldn't have taken place.

What about slavery? Slavary is advocated in the bible, does that mean slavery is moral?

If there wasn't wide spread support in Germany for the killing, then it just wouldn't have been on such a large scale.

The majority of the German people were giving up the Jews to the authorities, but they never knew what was happening. Do you know when the German people found out about the murder of the Jews? After the war! I think it is reasonable to assume that if they knew what was going on they would have interveined in some way. Your source makes no mention of the German public knowing about nor advocating such activities, as the Holocaust. Stop saying they do!

And even if they did:

You don't support something if you think it is wrong, unless your pressured into supporting something against your will.

Being pressured to do something, is not the same as agreeing with it.

Now name a moral action of statement that can be performed by a believer, that cannot be performed by a non-believer?

Let me break down what I mean about a moral action or statment...Someone who does not murder is seen as moral, but a murderer is not. Someone who forgives is seen as a good person, someone who does not is also a good person. Do you want me to make it any clearer?

(Forgiveness is not immoral! It's selfesh.)

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:38 am

Augustine and Aquinas used murder and torture not to benefit themselves, but to spread the gospel and eliminate heratics.

That was wrong. William answer this question:

What would more likely put you off God; the way some Christians represent God/Christianity or lack of evidence?

Quote:But if somebody is given the chance to forgive, they should.


Or else? If they don't are they immoral?
What if the person's lack of forgiveness caused the person asking for forgiveness more suffering?

What about slavery? Slavary is advocated in the bible, does that mean slavery is moral?

I believe that slavery is immoral. Heres an article about the Bible and slavery. You might find it interesting:

http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/bourne/bourne.html

Now name a moral action of statement that can be performed by a believer, that cannot be performed by a non-believer?

Praying for somebody.

Let me break down what I mean about a moral action or statment...Someone who does not murder is seen as moral, but a murderer is not. Someone who forgives is seen as a good person, someone who does not is also a good person. Do you want me to make it any clearer?

How do you know murder is wrong? How do you prove a moral is right or wrong? How do you define what a good person is? What is good? Define good. How do you know that the person who didn't forgive was a good person if you are uncertain about what is good? How do you prove to somebody else a certain moral action you think is right, is actually right?

Without a higher authority setting the standard for humanity's morality, then anything goes. Nobody can tell you your wrong, or that I'm right.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:48 am

That was wrong.

Do you care to tell me why?

What would more likely put you off God; the way some Christians represent God/Christianity or lack of evidence?

I don't understand your question?

What if the person's lack of forgiveness caused the person asking for forgiveness more suffering?

Why did you answer my question with another question? I asked what happens, or should happen, to someone who does not forgive?

I believe that slavery is immoral. Heres an article about the Bible and slavery. You might find it interesting:

Where do YOU get YOUR morals from? Because in the bible, slavery is not immoral!

Praying for somebody.

That is about as useful as aerobic dancing. Not only that, are you suggesting that, by not praying form someone, I am immoral?

Does praying for someone ease their suffering? And does not praying for someone add to or cause suffering? The answer to both is NO! So therefore it is neither moral nor immoral.

How do you know murder is wrong? How do you prove a moral is right or
wrong? How do you define what a good person is? What is good? Define
good. How do you know that the person who didn't forgive was a good
person if you are uncertain about what is good? How do you prove to
somebody else a certain moral action you think is right, is actually
right?

Without a higher authority setting the standard for
humanity's morality, then anything goes. Nobody can tell you your
wrong, or that I'm right.

Perhaps you should read my (several) posts on morality!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:52 am


First of all, I know I'm breaking the rules...but you are not debating so I think were even.

I seriouly doubt you actually read this. Not only that it shows your gullibility and ignorace that you did not offer your own opinions on why you believe slavery is immoral.

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:49 am

Do you care to tell me why?

Because it made other humans suffer.

Quote:What would more likely put you off God; the way some Christians represent God/Christianity or lack of evidence?


I don't understand your question?
Which is the stronger reason for you not believing in God; the way some Christians represent God or the lack of evidence?

I asked what happens, or should happen, to someone who does not forgive?

Its their choice. They are left to deal with the consequences, which are different for each situation.

Where do YOU get YOUR morals from? Because in the bible, slavery is not immoral!

I get my morals from the Bible and God. When I do something that is wrong, God convicts me that it is wrong.

Whats your viewpoint on the Jewish laws that allowed for slaves to be freed every 7 years;

Exodus 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

Deuteronomy 15:12 [And] if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

Does praying for someone ease their suffering? And does not praying for someone add to or cause suffering? The answer to both is NO! So therefore it is neither moral nor immoral.

What if the person was miraculously healed of a disease because they where prayed for. Would that not ease their suffering?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:49 pm

Because it made other humans suffer.

So does your interpretation of Christianity!

Which is the stronger reason for you not believing in God; the way some Christians represent God or the lack of evidence?

If Christians were always the best people on the planet, never hurt anyone, nor lied or committed any crime, that still wouldn't prove that Jesus was born of a virgin, or indeed was ressurected. There is no evidence for Yaweh, just as there is none for Allah, Zeus, Thor, Wotan, Appolo, Posiden and the countless other god's that reside in the graveyeard we call mythology!

Its their choice. They are left to deal with the consequences, which are different for each situation.

What are the consequences? Do people go to hell as a result of not forgiving?

Whats your viewpoint on the Jewish laws that allowed for slaves to be freed every 7 years;

What is yours?

Again, apologies for breaking the rules, but, I don't give a flying fuck if they are freed after 7 days! Keeping someone against their will is WRONG! (Alledged criminals are an exception, and even then they are treated better)! Are you seriously saying that as long as you don't keep a slave longer then 7 years it's ok? Are you?

So if you get your morals from the Bible, then you obviously think that you can have slaves for 7 years? Am I correct?

What if the person was miraculously healed of a disease because they where prayed for. Would that not ease their suffering?

No, on two fronts. Frist, prayer does not work, if it did, why does a preacher in America get away with child molestation, yet a mother of 7 dies of breast cancer? Second, if you don't pray for someone, does that mean they contract a disease?

p.s The questions I want an answer to are in bold. Do not send me a link unless it is to back up your OWN viewpoint!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:27 pm

What are the consequences? Do people go to hell as a result of not forgiving?

No. People don't go to hell as the result of not forgiving. People go to hell for rejecting God. Here is a question for you; How do we deal with humanity's sin problem without God?

What is yours?
I think it is a very good thing that the slaves got the chance to be freed after 7 years.

Are you seriously saying that as long as you don't keep a slave longer then 7 years it's ok? Are you?
No I'm not saying that.

So if you get your morals from the Bible, then you obviously think that you can have slaves for 7 years? Am I correct?
I don't think I can have slaves for 7 years. You need to see the cultural context in which the Old Testament was written. Back then it was socially acceptable to have slaves. You need to see that running through out the Bible is this theme that slaves shouldn't be mistreated and should be treated well. The releasing of slaves every 7 years is one example of this theme.

No, on two fronts. Frist, prayer does not work, if it did, why does a preacher in America get away with child molestation, yet a mother of 7 dies of breast cancer?

Prayer can work. Firstly a preacher should never be involved in child molestation, and if he is, he should be punished for his wrong doing. And you can not judge Christianity on the basis of the actions of that preacher, because that preacher is not representing true Christianity. There is no place for child molestation in true Christianity. As for the women with cancer. Cancer is a terrible thing and I wouldn't wish it upon anybody. Disease is one of the marks of the fall. There was no disease before the fall, but after the fall there is. I will admit, I don't know why God doesn't heal every disease when we pray. But I believe God is still in control. Its up to Him to decide whether to heal somebody or not.

Second, if you don't pray for someone, does that mean they contract a disease?
No it doesn't. People contract diseases because they live in a fallen world.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:40 pm

No. People don't go to hell as the result of not forgiving. People go to hell for rejecting God.

Then how is not forgiving immoral?

I think it is a very good thing that the slaves got the chance to be freed after 7 years.

Then you are the Immoral one in this debate!

You need to see the cultural context in which the Old Testament was
written. Back then it was socially acceptable to have slaves. You need
to see that running through out the Bible is this theme that slaves
shouldn't be mistreated and should be treated well. The releasing of
slaves every 7 years is one example of this theme.

My point exactly! Our morals evolve socially, just the same way we do physically! So why is it so hard to see that, at some point rape may have been acceptable, yet now it is not, just like slavery? Except that you are so brainwashed that you actually think it is acceptable under certain circumstances!

Don't waffle on about culture, and then claim that it was God who told us the duifference between right and wrong. Becasue according to the bible, it was God who set the rules for slavery!

Prayer can work. Firstly a preacher should never be involved in child
molestation, and if he is, he should be punished for his wrong doing.
And you can not judge Christianity on the basis of the actions of that
preacher, because that preacher is not representing true Christianity.
There is no place for child molestation in true Christianity. As for
the women with cancer. Cancer is a terrible thing and I wouldn't wish
it upon anybody. Disease is one of the marks of the fall. There was no
disease before the fall, but after the fall there is. I will admit, I
don't know why God doesn't heal every disease when we pray. But I
believe God is still in control. Its up to Him to decide whether to
heal somebody or not.

I am not saying that the actions of a preacher, is a representation of Christianity. Can you tell me what 'True Christianity' is?

Its up to Him to decide whether to
heal somebody or not.

This contradicts your point! If it is up to God, then weather we pray or not is irrelevant. He heals who he wants, and he kills who he wants. Therefore, prayer is not a moral action! You failed again! You just dissmissed your own argument! Perhaps you are begining to think?

No it doesn't. People contract diseases because they live in a fallen world.

Nope, it's because of bacteria, viruses, and germs. If disease is a result of the fall, then we don't need God to cure, stomach ulsers, we have got antibiotics! To quote Laplace: 'It works fine without that assumption!'

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:09 pm

Let us weigh the gain and the loss, in wagering that God is.
Consider these alternatives: if you win, you win all, if you
lose you lose nothing. Do not hesitate, then, to wager that he
is.

-- Blaise Pascal

Then how is not forgiving immoral?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It depends on whether its immoral to withhold an action when you know your withholding that action would cause somebody more suffering. If you refused to do something even though it meant that person was going to suffer more, would you be immoral? This is difficult. For example if somebody asked me if abortion was OK, I would have to say it is wrong because its the same as murder. Therefore I couldn't agree with abortion even though forcing the women to have a baby might cause her more suffering. Would I be immoral by my refusal to prevent further suffering? I think I would be inclined to do the morally right thing regardless of whether my actions caused more suffering, so long as my actions where morally right. For example, not lying (because lying is wrong), even if this meant people suffer. This is not always easy. This then leads to another issue. What is more important; honoring God or honoring man? Is it more important to obey God (and the Ten Commandments) rather than doing everything possible to alleviate the suffering of mankind? Remember that the fall occurred because Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Would the fall have occurred if Adam and Eve had obeyed God? Should a doctor end the life of a terminally ill patient even though God says murder is wrong?

Don't waffle on about culture, and then claim that it was God who told us the duifference between right and wrong. Becasue according to the bible, it was God who set the rules for slavery!

Who set the rules for the German Nazis to murder the Jews?

Can you tell me what 'True Christianity' is?

Being Christlike. True Christians have been supernaturally changed by the grace of God. In effect a Christian is a new person. They have had their old nature of sin dealt with.

This contradicts your point! If it is up to God, then weather we pray or not is irrelevant. He heals who he wants, and he kills who he wants. Therefore, prayer is not a moral action! You failed again! You just dissmissed your own argument! Perhaps you are begining to think?

God is absolutely in control over everything. God can choose to limit his control by giving humans the chance to make choices and deal with the consequences of their choices. Prayer is one of these areas. God can choose how to answer our prayers. Healing can come about through prayer, but its not guaranteed.

Nope, it's because of bacteria, viruses, and germs. If disease is a result of the fall, then we don't need God to cure, stomach ulsers, we have got antibiotics! To quote Laplace: 'It works fine without that assumption!'

What about diseases there is no cure for? What if over time antibiotics become ineffective in tackling a particular illness?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:58 pm

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

You said it was! So which is it?

It depends on whether its immoral to withhold an action when you know
your withholding that action would cause somebody more suffering.

Thats my point! Can you forgive a suicide bomber? Considering they are dead, what is the point! Forgiveness is NOT moral, nor immoral! So stop claim it is!

This is difficult. For example if somebody asked me if abortion was OK,
I would have to say it is wrong because its the same as murder.
Therefore I couldn't agree with abortion even though forcing the women
to have a baby might cause her more suffering.

That is fair enough. Although the suffering of the woman, far outweighs the suffering of the embryo! But that is another argument!

Would I be immoral by my refusal to prevent further suffering? I think
I would be inclined to do the morally right thing regardless of whether
my actions caused more suffering, so long as my actions where morally
right. For example, not lying (because lying is wrong), even if this
meant people suffer.

Quite possibly the most intelligent thing I have heard you say (althought I didn't hear you actually say it). I'll come back to this at the end.

This is not always easy. This then leads to another issue. What is more important; honoring God or honoring man?

We know morality does not come from religion, so this point is irrelevant.

Should a doctor end the life of a terminally ill patient even though God says murder is wrong?

Should the free will of that patient be ignored because of a belief?

Who set the rules for the German Nazis to murder the Jews?

What rules? The point was about slavery!

Being Christlike. True Christians have been supernaturally changed by
the grace of God. In effect a Christian is a new person. They have had
their old nature of sin dealt with.

Then they sin again, then again, and again and again ad infinium! If your sin is dealt with then why continue to sin? Are you a 'True Cristian'? Are you Christlike? How can you possibly compare to a demi-God who claimed to be born of a Virgin and can escape death? You are not even close to this, in any way!

God is absolutely in control over everything. God can choose to limit
his control by giving humans the chance to make choices and deal with
the consequences of their choices. Prayer is one of these areas. God
can choose how to answer our prayers. Healing can come about through
prayer, but its not guaranteed.

Then don't claim it to be moral!

What about diseases there is no cure for? What if over time antibiotics become ineffective in tackling a particular illness?

At a point in history, small pox was thought incurable, but mankind eventually found a cure, no God in sight! As for antibiotics becoming ineffective, that is down to evolution. The bacteria is becoming immune to current antibiotics, hense new antibiotics being developed.

Back to this:

Would I be immoral by my refusal to prevent further suffering? I think
I would be inclined to do the morally right thing regardless of whether
my actions caused more suffering, so long as my actions where morally
right. For example, not lying (because lying is wrong), even if this
meant people suffer.

Would you be immoral? It depends, for example, you are a witness to a rape taking place, yet you decide to do nothing to hinder, or stop it. Yet no one sees you, are you immoral? If you do intervene, and the rapist is apprehended, and sentenced to death (let say you are in Texas), are you immoral? In both cases, suffering is produced. In one, only you know what you have done. The question is, what do you do when no one is looking? Can you see my point?

Why are you not focusing on Slavery? The Bilbe/GOD has set rules regarding slavery, but why do you go against his rules?

P.S. Do not insult my intelligence by quoting Pascal's wager!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by lou{sosiennaboho} on Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:54 pm

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It depends on whether its immoral to
withhold an action when you know your withholding that action would
cause somebody more suffering. If you refused to do something even
though it meant that person was going to suffer more, would you be
immoral? This is difficult. For example if somebody asked me if
abortion was OK, I would have to say it is wrong because its the same
as murder. Therefore I couldn't agree with abortion even though forcing
the women to have a baby might cause her more suffering. Would I be
immoral by my refusal to prevent further suffering? I think I would be
inclined to do the morally right thing regardless of whether my actions
caused more suffering, so long as my actions where morally right. For
example, not lying (because lying is wrong), even if this meant people
suffer. This is not always easy. This then leads to another issue. What
is more important; honoring God or honoring man? Is it more important
to obey God (and the Ten Commandments) rather than doing everything
possible to alleviate the suffering of mankind? Remember that the fall
occurred because Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Would the fall have
occurred if Adam and Eve had obeyed God? Should a doctor end the life
of a terminally ill patient even though God says murder is wrong?

By saying this dave, you must admit then that each person has the right to make their own choices and decisions and that none of us can determine what is 'moral' and 'immoral' in our lives apart from ourselves and the law of the land. Therefore just because Christians believe that God determines morality, doesn't make it true nor does it make a non-believer guilty of immorality.


Being Christlike. True Christians have been supernaturally changed by
the grace of God. In effect a Christian is a new person. They have had
their old nature of sin dealt with.

As an ex-Christian, I know this isn't true. It takes a hell of a lot of effort to change, you maye feel different, like God has changed you, but its YOU that has to decide NOT to do something you believe is wrong.

God
is absolutely in control over everything. God can choose to limit his
control by giving humans the chance to make choices and deal with the
consequences of their choices. Prayer is one of these areas. God can
choose how to answer our prayers. Healing can come about through
prayer, but its not guaranteed.

Even when I was a Christian, I never believed God was in control of everything and neither did any respectable Christian in authority. Gee dave your the first to preach free will after all, does that suddenly stop when it comes to God's control? And if God is in control, he ain't as loving as you think then. From what you say, it seems that God likes to play games and tease the people hes meant to love the most!

lou{sosiennaboho}

Posts : 4
Join date : 2007-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:58 pm

You said it was! So which is it?

Thats my point! Can you forgive a suicide bomber? Considering they are dead, what is the point! Forgiveness is NOT moral, nor immoral! So stop claim it is!

If you could show me an action that wasn't either moral or immoral yet that action still caused suffering in somebody else, then I would have to say not forgiving might not be immoral. Can an action that causes suffering not be moral or immoral? Can you come up with an action that causes suffering and still remains neither moral or immoral?

That is fair enough. Although the suffering of the woman, far outweighs the suffering of the embryo! But that is another argument!

If Adam could have actually seen all the suffering throughout history to now, would he still have disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden? I wonder...

We know morality does not come from religion, so this point is irrelevant.

How did Adam and Eve know it was wrong to eat the fruit from the tree? Because God told them. How would they have known if God hadn't told them? Could they have known by merely their feelings?

Should the free will of that patient be ignored because of a belief?

Thats a difficult question. It raises another issue; is it immoral to let another human do something (and not stop them) that is wrong? If you let the patient kill themselves because you where letting them have free will, would you be acting immorally? Should we allow the September 11th attacks, considering that the attackers where acting upon their free will and choosing to fly the planes into the twin towers? If America had caught those attackers before they attacked and prevented them attacking, would America have been wrong because they where preventing the attackers having free will? With a higher authority setting the standard for humanity's morality, then you can say to somebody; you shouldn't be doing that. Its wrong, no matter what your circumstances are.

Then they sin again, then again, and again and again ad infinium! If your sin is dealt with then why continue to sin? Are you a 'True Cristian'? Are you Christlike? How can you possibly compare to a demi-God who claimed to be born of a Virgin and can escape death? You are not even close to this, in any way!

I will admit, as a Christian, I'm a long way off being the person I should be. I admit as well that I do struggle with sin. I believe that a Christian struggles more with sin than a non-believer because a non-Christians want to live in their sin, whilst a true Christian doesn't because that harms their relationship with God. As a Christian grows they become more like Jesus and the desire to sin becomes less and less. This world is filled with temptations to sin, and its wrong to think that once you become a Christian you won't be tempted to sin. In fact your more likely to be tempted to sin when your a Christian because the devil doesn't want you to be a Christian.

At a point in history, small pox was thought incurable, but mankind eventually found a cure, no God in sight! As for antibiotics becoming ineffective, that is down to evolution. The bacteria is becoming immune to current antibiotics, hense new antibiotics being developed.

If diseases are evolving to be stronger and better, how would that help humans survive? It would make it harder for humans to survive.

Would you be immoral? It depends, for example, you are a witness to a rape taking place, yet you decide to do nothing to hinder, or stop it. Yet no one sees you, are you immoral? If you do intervene, and the rapist is apprehended, and sentenced to death (let say you are in Texas), are you immoral? In both cases, suffering is produced. In one, only you know what you have done. The question is, what do you do when no one is looking? Can you see my point?

In a difficult case like that, if your actions where not wrong, then you should do whatever causes least suffering. If that rapist went onto rape 10 other people, that would result in more suffering than the rapist being sentenced to death. Anyhow it would be wrong to lie if you where ever questioned about what you saw in regard to the rape. With a higher authority setting humanity's standard of morality, you can say to the would be rapist; you shouldn't do that. Its wrong, no matter what your circumstances.

Why are you not focusing on Slavery? The Bilbe/GOD has set rules regarding slavery, but why do you go against his rules?

Its part of the Jewish law that Jesus has fulfilled. Thats the amazing thing about grace and Jesus' gift of salvation through His death on the cross. Its no longer about what we do. Before Jesus died, the Jews had to keep all the law perfectly to be right with God. But with Jesus' death, we can be made right with God through Jesus.

By saying this dave, you must admit then that each person has the right to make their own choices and decisions and that none of us can determine what is 'moral' and 'immoral' in our lives apart from ourselves and the law of the land. Therefore just because Christians believe that God determines morality, doesn't make it true nor does it make a non-believer guilty of immorality.

Yes everybody has the right to choose. Thats because God gave us free will. If you assert that because Christians believe that God determines morality doesn't make it true and that it doesn't make a non-believer guilty of immorality, then how do you know what is right and what is not? You don't. You left with the problem of not being able to call anything right or wrong. That in turn leaves only one sin; the sin of intolerance. You in turn can't send a rapist to jail if what they thought they were doing was right.

As an ex-Christian, I know this isn't true. It takes a hell of a lot of effort to change, you maye feel different, like God has changed you, but its YOU that has to decide NOT to do something you believe is wrong.
What about the Holy Spirit?

Even when I was a Christian, I never believed God was in control of everything and neither did any respectable Christian in authority. Gee dave your the first to preach free will after all, does that suddenly stop when it comes to God's control? And if God is in control, he ain't as loving as you think then. From what you say, it seems that God likes to play games and tease the people hes meant to love the most!

But you must remember, in a lot of cases, its the humans that are to blame for their actions not God. God gave free will, so if somebody rapes, then its the human's choice. Tell me how God could step into that situation and stop it whilst at the same time preserving the free will that He gives humans? Humans have to be responsible for their actions, even if those actions are bad.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:52 pm

Let me begin my restating my question…

Is forgiveness moral or immoral?

If you could show me an action that wasn't either moral or
immoral yet that action still caused suffering in somebody else, then I would
have to say not forgiving might not be immoral.

Not loving someone as much as they love you! That can cause suffering. So therefore we agree ‘Forgiveness is NOT moral!’ Agree?

Can an action that causes suffering not be moral or immoral?

My statement above is neither an action nor a statement.

Can you come up with an action that causes suffering and still remains neither moral or immoral?

Yes, see above.

If Adam could have actually seen all the suffering
throughout history to now, would he still have disobeyed God in the Garden of
Eden? I wonder…

He never existed, so no need to wonder. How come you believe the bible hook, line and sinker on this, but when God advocates and established the law regarding slave keeping, you see it a ‘cultural’?

How did Adam and Eve know it was wrong to eat the
fruit from the tree? Because God told them. How would they have known if God
hadn't told them? Could they have known by merely their feelings?

They never existed, and it never happened.

Thats a difficult question.

But you’re the one who advocates free will! What’s the matter, is free will only conditional?

is it immoral to let another human do something (and
not stop them) that is wrong?

Actually, I raised this point! And, is suicide wrong? You are simply exercising free will!

If you let the patient kill themselves because you
where letting them have free will, would you be acting immorally?

Stay out of peoples lives.

Should we allow the September 11th attacks,
considering that the attackers where acting upon their free will and choosing
to fly the planes into the twin towers? If America
had caught those attackers before they attacked and prevented them attacking,
would America
have been wrong because they where preventing the attackers having free will?

Your going off on a tangent. That is not the same a suicide. A terminally ill patient that wishes to die with dignity, does not also take the lives of others.

With a higher authority setting the standard for
humanity's morality, then you can say to somebody; you shouldn't be doing that.
Its wrong, no matter what your circumstances are.

So slavery is wrong under any circumstances?

I will admit, as a Christian, I'm a long way off
being the person I should be.

Then you are not a ‘True Christian’ and that also means your interpretation of the bible is also wrong. You were the one who stated that Augustine and Aquinas, were not practicing ‘True Christianity’, yet you also admitted that you were not a ‘True Chrsitian’, so your interpretation is just as flawed as theirs.

I believe that a Christian struggles more with sin
than a non-believer because a non-Christians want to live in their sin,

Non-believers don’t have any sins!

…whilst a true Christian doesn't because that harms
their relationship with God.

But you are not a True Christian!

As a Christian grows they become more like Jesus and
the desire to sin becomes less and less. This world is filled with temptations
to sin, and its wrong to think that once you become a Christian you won't be
tempted to sin. In fact your more likely to be tempted to sin when your a
Christian because the devil doesn't want you to be a Christian.

How many people has the devil murdered (according to the bible)? How many first born babies has Satan slaughtered?

If diseases are evolving to be stronger and better,
how would that help humans survive? It would make it harder for humans to
survive.

Evolution is NOT specific to humans! Humans want to survive, as do lions, tigers, bears, antelope, fruit flies, sharks, crabs, fish, dinosaurs and yes even bacteria. All of the species on the planet today, and even those who died out, evolved.

In a difficult case like that, if your actions where
not wrong, then you should do whatever causes least suffering. If that rapist
went onto rape 10 other people, that would result in more suffering than the
rapist being sentenced to death.

How could you possibly know what that rapist would do in the future?

Anyhow it would be wrong to lie if you where ever questioned about what you saw in regard to the rape.

What if you were never questioned?

With a higher authority setting humanity's standard
of morality, you can say to the would be rapist; you shouldn't do that. Its
wrong, no matter what your circumstances.

By that statement, you assume that if I were in that position, I would let the rape happen. (As I don’t have a higher authority) Am I right?

Its part of the Jewish law that Jesus has fulfilled.
Thats the amazing thing about grace and Jesus' gift of salvation through His
death on the cross. Its no longer about what we do. Before Jesus died, the Jews
had to keep all the law perfectly to be right with God. But with Jesus' death,
we can be made right with God through Jesus.

Excuse me? Are the following verses part of the Jewish law?

Luke 12:47-48 :- ‘And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and
prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with
many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.’

1 Timothy 6:1-2 :- ‘Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let the not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.’

Ephesians 6:5 :- ‘Servants, be obedient to them that are your
masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;’

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the passages above show.

Your bible knowledge is severely lacking!

Yes everybody has the right to choose. Thats because God gave us
free will.

What about the slaves who were told to serve their masters, as if they were serving Christ? Did they have free will to not be slaves?

If you assert that because Christians believe that God determines
morality doesn't make it true and that it doesn't make a non-believer guilty of
immorality, then how do you know what is right and what is not? You don't.

Answer me this honestly, have you read any of my previous posts?

You left with the problem of not being able to call anything right
or wrong.

If it was culturally alright to keep slaves and treat women like dogs, 3,000
years ago, the why isn’t today’s culture not judged in the same way? You say:

You need to see the cultural context in which the Old Testament was written.
Back then it was socially acceptable to have slaves. You need to see that
running through out the Bible is this theme that slaves shouldn't be mistreated
and should be treated well. The releasing of slaves every 7 years is one
example of this theme.

Essentially you are saying it wasn’t God who made it ok to keep slaves, but
the culture, yet you dismiss culture as the reason we see murder as wrong? What is the difference?

You in turn can't send a rapist to jail if what they thought they
were doing was right.

Yes, you can!

What about the Holy Spirit?

It doesn’t exist either!

But you must remember, in a lot of cases, its the humans that are to
blame for their actions not God.

Were humans to blame for the death of the first born of Egypt? Were humans to blame for the slaughter of the Ishmaelites, Mideonite s and Amalicites? Were humans to blame for the ‘supposed’ flood that wiped out the whole world? Were humans responsible for evil? (Isaiah 45:7)

God gave free will, so if somebody rapes, then its the human's
choice. Tell me how God could step into that situation and stop it whilst at
the same time preserving the free will that He gives humans?

What about the free will of the victim?

Humans have to be responsible for their actions, even if those
actions are bad.

True. And they should be punished, by humans!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by nathan_purdy on Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:12 am

William,

Excellent post (the one to me). It helped me see a little further into the rationale behind your conclusions.

I assume, you mean nuclear war?
Correct. Which kind of makes the next paragraph irrelevant. However..
If not, just look at Iraq and Vietnam. America did not win those wars against lesser nations. The tribal camaraderie between the Vietcong, and the Iraqi militia, is stronger than the weapons and technology of a nation.
While it is an historical fact that America did not achieve its goals in Vietnam, and is not doing well in Iraq, I would say your explanation is overly simplistic. That America's machinery could trample Iraq into nothing is a fact - nuke. The reason they don't is a different matter. (Let's not get into a debate about America's foreign policy or ethics in war.) To set comaraderie against weaponry is too simplistic. There are other factors which are in favour the militia. Agree?
The tribal camaraderie between the Vietcong, and the Iraqi militia, is stronger than the weapons and technology of a nation.

I'm not saying its not strong, I'm saying that if America threw out its rulebook they could 'win.' One nuke could put an end to quite a lot of their opponents in one strike. All the camaraderie in the world would not help then.
‘How we ought to be treated.’ That is what is known as the Golden Rule. That is universal.
Correct. Moral laws are what people should do. There is general consensus on what these are e.g. the basic human rights someone already alluded to. Every law requires a law giver - and this law giver is God. The question is, are there universal laws which bind all humans? When a disagreement arises over an issue, is there any basis for us saying that one view is wrong and another is right? Now, if there is no objective moral law, then our moral judgements are subjective. If my moral jugements are subjective, then so are yours.
Polygyny I think is ...
Correct, correct, correct ...

First I think your view of morality is good, and would be wonderful if adhered to across our world.
You know that we, as Christians, regard the viewing of pornorgraphy as morally wrong. You also know that we regard priests looking at and fantasising over pictures of naked children as morally wrong. Whether or not these satisfy your questions depends on your definition of suffering and pain.

Your thoughts on morality have not made complete sense to me yet. Here's why:



  1. If morality is based on not causing suffering and pain
  2. And in some cases suffering and pain are beneficial to survival
  3. How does evolution have an objective basis for morality?





  1. You have already said that rape can be beneficial to survival.
  2. You freely agree that rape causes suffering and pain.
  3. So is rape moral or immoral?


That societal views have changed on this matter does not change whether or not it is inherently good for suvival. obviously.

We can get back to those Scriptures - I honestly haven't had time to look at them all yet.

There are a few questions there. Looking forward to your answers.

I may not get back for a while. Yea, your addicted to debating, but its tells, you are very good at it.

nathan_purdy

Posts : 9
Join date : 2007-10-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:55 am

It
helped me see a little further into the rationale behind your conclusions.

Pity I cannot return the ‘compliment’.

I'm saying that if America threw out its rulebook they
could 'win.' One nuke could put an end to quite a lot of their opponents in one
strike. All the camaraderie in the world would not help then.

As much as that is true, you would need a general consensus of approx 300 million people on the side of America. For example, Britain would not stand by. But again, America could destroy Britain. But such an act of aggression would result in retaliation, namely, from Russia, China, Britain and France, and who knows maybe even India and Pakistan.

And even if those nations were eliminated, it would result in the lost of countless American lives. During the Cold War, this was referred to as ‘MAD’ Mutually Assured Destruction. Everyone’s a winner. You do realize that there is a geopolitical reason why the crisis in Darfur has continued for so long. China! China buy Sudanese oil, in return for arms, and also protection form United Nations sanctions. China uses their Veto in cases relating to Sudan, as well as Burma. The overriding point is that you would need an overwhelming irrationality of the masses to ensure this to happen.

All the camaraderie in the world would not help
then.

On the contrary, all the camaraderie in the world would be beneficial.

There is general consensus on what these are e.g.
the basic human rights someone already alluded to. Every law requires a law
giver - and this law giver is God.

And on what evidence do you base this? Dare I ask for a rationale to your conclusion? Because if you mention the bible, then you must agree, that slavery is not deemed immoral. Read my previous post to Dave.

The question is, are there universal laws which bind
all humans? When a disagreement arises over an issue, is there any basis for us
saying that one view is wrong and another is right?

Could you give me an example such a disagreement?

If morality is based on not causing suffering and pain
And in some cases suffering and pain are beneficial to survival
How does evolution have an objective basis for morality?

Sorry if I’m being dense, but what suffering is beneficial to survival?

You have already said that rape can be beneficial to
survival.

True, but it is the consequences that are the suffering and pain, not the sexual act. I do see the point you are trying to make, but let’s be specific here, the suffering does not benefit the survival. Take for example the Australian Social Spider. This spider, will sacrifice itself, so that its young offspring can feed on it corpse, in order to survive. This is an example of suffering, benefiting survival. Rape on the other had is not. http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/gmis9823.htm

You
freely agree that rape causes suffering and pain.

So is rape moral or immoral?

Yes I agree that it causes suffering and pain, and is immoral. But rejecting someone’s love causes suffering and pain, but is that immoral? You cannot ‘force’ yourself to love, you either do or you don’t.

That societal views have changed on this matter does
not change whether or not it is inherently good for suvival. obviously.

In a world of abortion and contraception, it becomes less beneficial, if at all.

Yea, your addicted to debating, but its tells, you
are very good at it.

I’m ok, it’s just that my opponents are not very good. They tend to ignore certain challenges, suspiciously like the one below!

Name a moral action performed, or a moral statement made, by
a believer, that cannot be performed or made by a non-believer?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:24 am

Is forgiveness moral or immoral?

Forgiveness is the moral thing to do. And its immoral not to forgive if that causes suffering. Surely forgiving somebody to prevent suffering is a good thing to do, so therefore its a moral thing.

Not loving someone as much as they love you! That can cause suffering. So therefore we agree ‘Forgiveness is NOT moral!’ Agree?

If an action causes suffering, is it not immoral? I believe if you do something and it causes suffering then its immoral. What about lying to protect Jews during the second world war? Yeh thats a difficult one. Lying is sinful, therefore shouldn't be done. Likewise killing Jews is sinful and so shouldn't be done either.

Actually, I raised this point! And, is suicide wrong? You are simply exercising free will!

Suicide is wrong for 3 reasons;

1.Its the same as murder.
2.It goes against the way God wants humans to treat themselves and others.
3.It causes other people to suffer; the victim's family.

Your going off on a tangent. That is not the same a suicide. A terminally ill patient that wishes to die with dignity, does not also take the lives of others.

Yeh but they are causing others to suffer. Their family would suffer because of the decision to die.

You were the one who stated that Augustine and Aquinas, were not practicing ‘True Christianity’, yet you also admitted that you were not a ‘True Chrsitian’, so your interpretation is just as flawed as theirs.

All I was doing was pointing out that they couldn't be representing true Christianity when they encouraged murder because murder goes against the Bible.

Non-believers don’t have any sins!

What about evil? Evil is the result of sin. Adam sinned against God and evil was introduced into the world. Therefore if you say there is no sin, then you must think there is no evil either. And if you think there is no evil, then why would you care what is moral or immoral? Go on, try and prove to me that an evil action isn't sinful.

How many people has the devil murdered (according to the bible)? How many first born babies has Satan slaughtered?

Satan caused man to fall by tempting them in the Garden of Eden. So in a way Satan is indirectly responsible for all the evil that occurs in the world. We are all born sinful people. And only Jesus can solve that problem.

Essentially you are saying it wasn’t God who made it ok to keep slaves, but
the culture, yet you dismiss culture as the reason we see murder as wrong? What is the difference?

The Bible mentions murders taking place, like Cain killing Abel. But does that mean murder is right?

Were humans to blame for the death of the first born of Egypt? Were humans to blame for the slaughter of the Ishmaelites, Mideonite s and Amalicites? Were humans to blame for the ‘supposed’ flood that wiped out the whole world? Were humans responsible for evil? (Isaiah 45:7)

Why did God send the flood? Because humans where evil and sinful.

Name a moral action performed, or a moral statement made, by
a believer, that cannot be performed or made by a non-believer?

William, tell me of a means by which a non-believer can use to convince the whole world that something was either right or wrong. I believe in God. God says murder is wrong. I know that murder is morally wrong. A non believer on the other hand looks at the UK nowadays and sees murder being classed as wrong and then looks at Germany in the second world war and it looks like murder is Ok. How would a non believer then know whether murder was right or wrong? My claim is this:

A non-believer can not prove with 100% certainty that anything is right or wrong.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by nathan_purdy on Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:42 am

William,

This is precisely why I shy away from forums, and prefer face to face dialogue. Then you can stick to the issue.

First, I was addressing your statement that
The tribal camaraderie between the Vietcong, and the Iraqi militia, is stronger than the weapons and technology of a nation.
I responded,
I'm saying that if America threw out its rulebook they
could 'win.' One nuke could put an end to quite a lot of their opponents in one
strike. All the camaraderie in the world would not help then.
To which you replied,
As much as that is true...
That is what I was showing was true. Which made your assertion wrong. I wasn't debating your bigger point.
And on what evidence do you base this?
Can you suggest an alternative source for objective moral law? It is a philosophical defense for the existence of God, supported by Kant, C. S. Lewis etc.
Could you give me an example such a disagreement?
What if i think it is okay to steal your computer, but you disagree? Who is right?
Sorry if I’m being dense, but what suffering is beneficial to survival?
You said before, and repeated here, that rape was beneficial to survival. Rapes causes suffering.
True, but it is the consequences that are the suffering and pain, not the sexual act.
Come on, you say a woman doesn't have pain while being raped. Sorry - go ask one, and she will help you see different. Even it didn't happen in every instance, injury can and does happen.
But rejecting someone’s love causes suffering and pain, but is that immoral?
Accidently bumping into somone may cause them pain, that's not immoral either. Obviously, not everything that causes pain and suffering is immoral.

You already said
Yes I agree that it causes suffering and pain, and is immoral.
So you have showed that something beneficial to survival is immoral. Therefore, please help me to see how evolution gives an objective basis for morality.
I didn't recall you asking me the question,
Name a moral action performed, or a moral statement made, by
a believer, that cannot be performed or made by a non-believer?
Which proves what?

You can be a moral atheist, deist, agnostic. Again, I don't recall saying you couldn't.

Take care.

nathan_purdy

Posts : 9
Join date : 2007-10-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:20 pm

Forgiveness is the moral thing to do. And its immoral not to
forgive if that causes suffering. Surely forgiving somebody to prevent
suffering is a good thing to do, so therefore its a moral thing.

Are you saying that the victims of a suicide bomber are as immoral as the bomber, if they don’t forgive them? And if someone is in suffering and pain because their victim won’t forgive them, so what? They have to live with the consequences. Should we, forgive Ian Huntley, and set him free, simply because he is suffering and in pain? No, he has to deal with the consequences. That does not, and never will make the family of Sarah and Jessica immoral, and to suggest otherwise, is sick, and just like you! Your are so deluded that it actually, hurts me!

If an action causes suffering, is it not immoral?

It works both ways! If the birth of a child could result in the death of the mother, what do you think is the course of action to be taken? Abortion, or (essentially) suicide? In both cases, suffering is caused (depending on the age of the embryo)!

What about lying to protect Jews during the second
world war? Yeh thats a difficult one.

Perhaps you should try answering your own questions once in a while!

Likewise killing Jews is sinful and so shouldn't be
done either.

But sending them to hell is ok?

Suicide is wrong for 3 reasons;

1.Its the same as murder.

2.It goes against the way God wants humans to treat themselves and others.

3.It causes other people to suffer; the victim's family.

1. It’s not!
2. You keep insisting that God gave us free will, yet we are not allowed to exercise it!
3. What if the victim has no family? And in cases of euthanasia, what about the patients suffering?

Yeh but they are causing others to suffer. Their family
would suffer because of the decision to die.

You’re the advocate of free will!

All I was doing was pointing out that they couldn't
be representing true Christianity when they encouraged murder because murder
goes against the Bible.

Am I right or wrong, but didn’t Moses commit murder? Yet God saw fit to make him a leader? How do you explain that one? Is it ok to murder, when God says so? Even if he did, Moses killed a man ‘before’ ever speaking to God!

What about evil? Evil is the result of sin.

Isaiah 45:7 – ‘I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.’

Have you even read the bible? You claim that you accept it as the perfect word of God. Well then, God created evil, not Satan!

Therefore if you say there is no sin, then you must
think there is no evil either.

Sin, unlike morality, is exclusive to religion!

Satan caused man to fall by tempting them in the Garden of Eden.

Where is Satan mentioned in the book of Genesis? I can answer that. He's not!

So in a way Satan is indirectly responsible for all
the evil that occurs in the world. We are all born sinful people. And only
Jesus can solve that problem.

So essentially, we were created sick, and ordered to be well?

The Bible mentions murders taking place, like Cain
killing Abel. But does that mean murder is right?

When Moses and his band of merry men committed genocide, does that make it right?

Why did God send the flood? Because humans where
evil and sinful.

And drowning them was the answer? Not a very loving God! (By the way, there was no flood!)

William, tell me of a means by which a non-believer
can use to convince the whole world that something was either right or wrong. I
believe in God. God says murder is wrong. I know that murder is morally wrong.

Do you think that you could convince a would-be murderer with ‘God said that is wrong!’? Grow up!

A non believer on the other hand looks at the UK nowadays and sees murder being classed as
wrong and then looks at Germany
in the second world war and it looks like murder is Ok.

Are you suggesting that I think the Holocaust was ok? If so, you are mentally retarded, to the highest degree.

How would a non believer then know whether murder
was right or wrong?

The same way you can tell the difference between red and blue!

A non-believer can not prove with 100%
certainty that anything is right or wrong.

Neither can a believer! Especially you! I’m finding it hard to know weather you have a brain or not?

Now, answer my challenge, or stop posting!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:25 pm

Nathan,

A very short post...

...you say a woman doesn't have pain while being raped.

Where did I say that?

I didn't recall you asking me the question,

Then re-read the previous posts!

Name a moral action performed, or a moral statement made, by a believer, that cannot be performed or made by a non-believer?

Stop avoiding the question, either:

1. You can answer it and that answer is ________________.
2. I cannot answer the questin, because no such action or statment is exclusive to believers.

Once you answer, I will offer a full rebuttal to your misreprentaion of the facts.

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:07 pm

Are you saying that the victims of a suicide bomber are as immoral as the bomber, if they don’t forgive them? And if someone is in suffering and pain because their victim won’t forgive them, so what? They have to live with the consequences. Should we, forgive Ian Huntley, and set him free, simply because he is suffering and in pain? No, he has to deal with the consequences. That does not, and never will make the family of Sarah and Jessica immoral, and to suggest otherwise, is sick, and just like you! Your are so deluded that it actually, hurts me!
Your jumping to big conclusions there. I know one thing for certain. Forgiveness isn't easy.

It works both ways! If the birth of a child could result in the death of the mother, what do you think is the course of action to be taken? Abortion, or (essentially) suicide? In both cases, suffering is caused (depending on the age of the embryo)!

Answer this question. If humans only ever had sex within marriage (and not outside of marriage), would we ever need to consider abortion as an issue? Humans demean the sacredness of marriage and then have the cheek to complain that theres no way to avoid suffering.

But sending them to hell is ok?

Your overlooking the most important issue. Sin. God cannot ignore sin in a person, whatever their circumstances. Sin is sin. You can not grade sin and say Hitler's sin is greater than the sin of a Jew in the second world war. Only though Jesus can the problem of sin be dealt with.

Sin, unlike morality, is exclusive to religion!

Answer this question: Why do you feel guilty when you do something that is wrong?

So essentially, we were created sick, and ordered to be well?

We are all born in sin. Yet God still loves us and provides a solution to our sin problem; Jesus.

And drowning them was the answer? Not a very loving God!

And how loving towards God do you think Adam was being when he ate the fruit in the garden of Eden? Not very. Humanity can't complain if God shows love and then we go right ahead and disobey God. We have to face the consequences for that disobedience.

Are you suggesting that I think the Holocaust was ok? If so, you are mentally retarded, to the highest degree.
I'm not suggesting that. But please explain to me how you know with 100% certainty that murder is wrong.

The same way you can tell the difference between red and blue!
What if somebody is colour blind?

Quote:A non-believer can not prove with 100%
certainty that anything is right or wrong.

Neither can a believer!

A believer can because the Bible says murder is wrong. It is one of the ten commandments.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:18 pm

Your jumping to big conclusions there. I know one thing for certain. Forgiveness isn't easy.

Based on what you say about forgiveness, there not so big, and I'm not jumping.

Answer this question. If humans only ever had sex within marriage (and
not outside of marriage), would we ever need to consider abortion as an
issue?

Yes!

Humans demean the sacredness of marriage and then have the cheek to complain that theres no way to avoid suffering.

Sacredness? There is not sacredness, it's simply a tradition. No one 'has' to get married!

God cannot ignore sin in a person, whatever their circumstances.

Moses?

Why do you feel guilty when you do something that is wrong?

You need to be more specific!

Yet God still loves us and provides a solution to our sin problem; Jesus.

He loves us but:

God cannot ignore sin in a person, whatever their circumstances.

Contradicting yourself!

And how loving towards God do you think Adam was being when he ate the
fruit in the garden of Eden? Not very. Humanity can't complain if God
shows love and then we go right ahead and disobey God. We have to face
the consequences for that disobedience.

Humanity is humanity, God is God! You cannot compare the two. God is obviously not all-powerful, because if he was, then he wouldn't be so uptight about people disobeying him! Pathetic!

But please explain to me how you know with 100% certainty that murder is wrong.

Is 'murder' 100% wrong? Do you think Hitler, should have been fogiven and left to his own devices? No, he needed to be punished. Unfortunatly, the chance to do so never arose. But do you think Saddam Huessian should have been forgiven?

What if somebody is colour blind?

Exactly, a misfiring in nature. Much like the 'suicide' of a moth when it flies into a candle!

A believer can because the Bible says murder is wrong. It is one of the ten commandments.

A non-believer can say that slavery is wrong, and that is not one of the 10 commandments. If the 10 commandments are the basis of your morality, then why do you think slavery is wrong? Rape is not mentioned in the 10 commandments, but why do you say it is wrong?

What punishment would you give for muder? Rape? Sexual Abuse? And slavery?

Now, a simple yes or no will suffice:

Are you going to accept my cahallenge, or admit that you cannot complete it?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:24 pm

By the way, Dave, you ignored my questions:

If the birth of a child could result in the death of the mother, what do you think is the course of action to be taken? Abortion, or (essentially) suicide? In both cases, suffering is caused (depending on the age of the embryo)!

...but didn’t Moses commit murder? Yet God saw fit to make him a leader? How do you explain that one? Is it ok to murder, when God says so?

Isaiah 45:7 – ‘I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.’

Have you even read the bible? You claim that you accept it as the perfect word of God. Well then, God created evil, not Satan!

When Moses and his band of merry men committed genocide, does that make it right?

And finally:

Now, answer my challenge, or stop posting!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:54 pm

Sacredness? There is not sacredness, it's simply a tradition. No one 'has' to get married!

Then explain to me why children prosper more under marriage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=F11&blog=yourview&xml=/news/2006/09/07/ublview07.xml

I quote:
A new study commissioned by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith has concluded that marriage is the best environment to raise children because it offers the greatest chance of a stable upbringing.
Unmarried parents are up to five times more likely to experience family breakdown, according to the survey of 15,000 mothers who gave birth during 2000-01

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1466737.ece
I quote:
Official statistics show that some 70% of young criminal offenders come from lone-par-ent families. Children growing up in lone-parent families are twice as likely to suffer a mental disorder as those living with married parents.

Moses?

God obviously chose to forgive Moses. If you don't ask God to forgive your sin, then don't expect God to automatically overlook your sin.

You need to be more specific!

If you say non-believers have no sin, then why do you feel guilty over wrong doing? Can somebody feel guilt over their actions if they can't be 100% certain their actions where right or wrong? I feel guilty when I know something I've done is actually wrong.

Is 'murder' 100% wrong? Do you think Hitler, should have been fogiven and left to his own devices? No, he needed to be punished. Unfortunatly, the chance to do so never arose. But do you think Saddam Huessian should have been forgiven?

Saddan Huessian did evil things and deserves to be punished. But if he asked God for forgiveness before he died, then he has as much right to be forgiven by God as I do.

Exactly, a misfiring in nature. Much like the 'suicide' of a moth when it flies into a candle!

And what is the ultimate cause for the misfiring in nature?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:02 pm

Answer my questions!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:27 pm

Quote:If the birth of a child could result in the death of the mother, what do you think is the course of action to be taken? Abortion, or (essentially) suicide? In both cases, suffering is caused (depending on the age of the embryo)!

First and foremost I would encourage people to only have sex within marriage. This dramatically reduces the likelihood of having to consider the abortion issue, if at all. And if abortion needs to be considered, I would not allow abortion as the unborn human didn't choose his parents and should rightly be allowed a chance at life. Only the parents made the wrong decision, not the unborn baby. Therefore the parents need to deal with it. If you allow abortion, then where will it end? Are you going to allow the death of anybody who it would be more of an inconvenience to keep alive? What then happens to human dignity?

Quote:...but didn’t Moses commit murder? Yet God saw fit to make him a leader? How do you explain that one? Is it ok to murder, when God says so?

Would it have been right for Moses to ignore the Hebrew who was being harmed by an Egyptian? I believe God choose to forgive Moses. At no point was murder right.

Quote:Isaiah 45:7 – ‘I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.’

Have you even read the bible? You claim that you accept it as the perfect word of God. Well then, God created evil, not Satan!

God had to create evil as an option otherwise humans wouldn't have had full free will. What else but God could we have chosen if evil didn't exist as an option? When Adam disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, evil was introduced into the world and became more than just an option. Satan was responsible for causing Adam to disobey God.

Quote:When Moses and his band of merry men committed genocide, does that make it right?

Answer this question. Had the people who the Israelites killed ever sinned against God? Yes they had. If the people who the Israelites killed where 100% perfect and without any sin in their lives, then it definitely wouldn't have been right to murder them. Thats why the death of Jesus, a perfect human, was such an injustice.

Quote:Now, answer my challenge, or stop posting!

A non-believer can not guarantee with 100% certainly that anything is right or wrong. A believer on the other hand can. For a non-believer right and wrong are relative.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 15 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9 ... 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum