[_ Old Earth _] This is SO Sick!! Disgusting!

[John]

Actually most biologists believe that humans evolved morality, through us having a highly enough developed brain to experience empathy.

read my Baloney detector thread.

 

[John]

After all, I don't see anyone stoning disobedient children to death these days.

True, the NT explains why. ignorance of gods word is nothing new around these parts.

As has been said, our sense of ethics is derived from evolution, which is why we can see very similar patterns in ethical positions across all demographics.

to opinionated.

 

[Snidey]

After all, I don't see anyone stoning disobedient children to death these days.

True, the NT explains why. ignorance of gods word is nothing new around these parts.


[quote:9f247]As has been said, our sense of ethics is derived from evolution, which is why we can see very similar patterns in ethical positions across all demographics.

to opinionated.[/quote:9f247]

The NT also clearly states a desire to continue to uphold OT law. After all, God doesn't change his mind.

Not sure what your "to opinionated" comment means.

 

[John]

The NT also clearly states a desire to continue to uphold OT law. After all, God doesn't change his mind.

to the best of ones ability, no one can uphold all of what? 619 laws?

Not sure what your "to opinionated" comment means.

my Baloney thread covers it a believe.

 

[Snidey]

To the best of one's ability, indeed. Which is why you should be stoning people left and right. Stones and throwing arms still exist, after all.

 

[John]

To the best of one's ability, indeed. Which is why you should be stoning people left and right. Stones and throwing arms still exist, after all.

Ok, do i have to explain it to you like a child?

ANY sin weather murder or stealing a cookie from the cookie jar is all the same to God, the wages of sin is death (hence the stoning), Jesus came to relive the sin from us if we accept what he did and ask for forgiveness.

 

[Snidey]

I get that part (which means I traversed the field of typos and misspellings you just presented, blegh). This does not necessitate that death penalties never be invoked, unless I am mistaken, so I'm not sure what you're point is.

 

[John]

I get that part (which means I traversed the field of typos and misspellings you just presented, blegh). This does not necessitate that death penalties never be invoked, unless I am mistaken, so I'm not sure what you're point is.

Aside form my bad grammar structure ,there was no misspellings.

Basically, yes the wages of sin is death end of story, the price has been paid, its offered freely.

 

[Snidey]

I count spelling "whether" as "weather" a misspelling.

 

[John]

I count spelling "whether" as "weather" a misspelling.

Blame FF spell checker :wink:

 

[Skavau]

If evolution is true, there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong"

Evolution says nothing on moral claims. It says nothing about what is right or what is wrong - it simply explains the diversity of life that we experience on earth.

We establish moral claims independently of evolution.

 

[Skavau]

This is correct more or less (replace evolution with atheism, but I suppose you align them directly), and I'm tired of atheists dodging it. There is no such thing as absolute right or wrong without some kind of perfect judge.

Correct.

Morality is by humans, for humans. This is, in my opinion - just as true under the existence of a theistic God as much as it is sans the existence of a theistic God. What defines a 'perfect judge'? All morality equals essentially is the efforts of humanity to co-operative together effectively. We value morality because of the majority belief that civilisation matters and co-operation amongst humans matter. It is in each individuals interests that collective moral values exist and are applied because everyone benefits.

 

[John]

What defines a 'perfect judge'?

One without sin.

 

[Skavau]

What defines a 'perfect judge'?

One without sin.

A 'perfect judge' of morality must be someone who is able to identify what humanity must universally ought and ought not do. Now, seeing as morality and ethical concern is simply a construct of a social species that wishes to co-operate - how 'perfect judgment' concerning the topic of morality as it actually exists makes no coherent sense to me. A 'perfect judge' must have access to all universal standards. How do we even know that a 'universal standard' of morality even exists? Do we have any reason to believe one? I do not contend there is a universal standard of morality exists and I believe your assertion that a perfect judge is without sin creates a self-refuting paradox.

You have already assumed a moral negative. You are assuming that a 'sin' is something that we ought not to do. You already assign a universal moral standard as a prerequisite for a 'perfect judge'. This would, unfortunately nullify this judges perfection as he would already be bound by a principle that is yet to be substantiated and as a consequence of your proclamation, cannot be substantiated. You create a paradox.

Thanks, Skavau

 

[Biblereader]

Utilizing embryos to prevent enormous amounts of actual human suffering is not sick

Combining humans with animals is an abomination.

Using unborn human souls for experiments is evil. Pure evil.

 

[Biblereader]

If evolution is true, there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong"

Evilution is a lie. There will always be, even in the minds of atheists, right and wrong.

I can prove YOU have a moral sense of right and wrong. Believe it or not, that ability to know the difference between good and evil was written on your heart.

Yes, I can prove you are a subscriber to right and wrong, and you have moral absolutes.

 

[Biblereader]

Basically, you can't describe why it's wrong, you just read it in a book you deem infallible (despite it almost clearly not being so).

Butchering living, helpless babies is wrong. It causes them pain, and who, in their right mind,
would want to cause pain to a helpless baby?
That's one reason why this experimentation is wrong. That's just on the non-spiritual side.

 

[BobRyan]

Utilizing embryos to prevent enormous amounts of actual human suffering is not sick

Combining humans with animals is an abomination.

Using unborn human souls for experiments is evil. Pure evil.

Indeed - and just as God set a limit for mankind at the flood - 2Peter 3 states clearly he will set a limit again.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

What defines a 'perfect judge'?

One without sin.

Indeed - the maker of mankind -- the maker of all life in the Universe -- the one who will ultimately resolve the issue with mankind as described in Revelation chapter 19 and 20.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Read Lev 18 -- God has a "limit" even for godless nations that have no Bible at all.

Read Gen 6-8 -- God had a limit for all of mankind -- at the flood.

Read Rev 20 and 2Peter 3 -- God has a limit for this planet.

A good way to "shorten the time" is to blindly go along the path the UK is legislating.

May God have mercy on mankind.

Bob

As already stated on page 1