Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What is fair, what is equal, what is good, which again would tie into what is the loving thing to do.And is that specified somewhere in your old book?The Ten Commandments, which Jesus summarized in two.Now you're just running in circles. That's where you got the "love god and love others" from in the first place.I'm asking why you use the "love" standard for "personal" stuff and the "justice" standard for "state" stuff.
The Ten Commandments are commandments in relation to God and humanity that He gave Israel as moral guidance on right and wrong. Jesus also confirmed these commandments in the New Covenant and emphasized that if you loved your neighbour and God you would not try to hurt others in the manners revealed by coveting, adultery, lying, stealing, murdering them, etc. But not only this, Jesus shows that hatred and lust for women are also the same as murder and adultery in that these same hurtful motives and desires of lust and hatred lead to the more egregious acts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And does God ever go back on, or change His word?No, His word is eternal and unchanging.How then do we explain verses that seem to say that God does change His mind? Verses such as Genesis 6:6, “The LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain.” Also, Exodus 32:14 proclaims, “Then the LORD relented and did not bring on His people the disaster He had threatened.” These verses speak of the Lord “repenting” or “relenting” of something and seem to contradict the doctrine of God’s immutability.Another passage that is often used to show that God changes His mind is the story of Jonah. Through His prophet, God had told Nineveh He would destroy the city in forty days (Jonah 3:4). However, Nineveh repented of their sin (verses 5–9). In response to the Assyrians’ repentance, God relented: “He had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction He had threatened” (verse 10). [LINK]
J.P. Holding had this to say about Genesis 6:6-7:
"Gen. 6:6-7 -- This (along with another, 1 Sam 15:11, regarding God "repenting" over the choice of Saul) is the primary hinge point of the Skeptical argument alleging contradiction. But let's look at that word "repent" more closely. It is nacham, and it means to be sorry, grieve, or to pity.
Now here is a question: Is it not possible to grieve and feel sorry over something -- even if we know that it is going to happen, even if we cause it to happen? Of course it is. And there is no reason why this cannot also apply to God, as we shall see."Exodus 32:14:
"Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them." The judgment here is conditional, and not conditional on the Israelites as a whole, but on their human representative Moses. If Moses leaves God alone, then the Israelites will taste judgment. Moses intercedes, as God (no doubt) expected him to.
Contextually we find that the reason for the threat is given in Exodus 32:7,8 where the Israelites not only worship an idol in the shape of a calf, but misplace credit for their deliverance from Egypt.
Btw, here is an article on how God treats women: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206%3A6&version=NASB;NIV;KJV;NKJV;ESV
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What informs your primary AXIOMS regarding "societal justice" (if-not-love)?What is fair, what is equal, what is good, which again would tie into what is the loving thing to do.And is that specified somewhere in your old book?
The Ten Commandments, which Jesus summarized in two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I'm trying to think of God commanding someone to do something without a moral imperative behind it and can't think of any so yes. A command is a moral imperative.And if those people disobeyed or went counter to that command, they would be going against the moral imperative of God, thereby making them immoral. Correct?
Yes. Now, may I ask what is the purpose of all these questions? Are you developing a case against the biblical God or are you interested in my thinking?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
His word describes both the good and bad of human affairs in all their sordidness. It also gives us a moral blueprint to work from, the Ten Commandments. Jesus sums up those ten in two.If God commanded someone (or a group of people) to do something, then the thing is necessarily moral. Correct?
I'm trying to think of God commanding someone to do something without a moral imperative behind it and can't think of any so yes. A command is a moral imperative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
but is in itself always perfectly moral. Agree?What do you mean by that? He describes both the good and evil, the moral and the immoral, the perfect and the flawed.I was talking about God's Word, not God Himself. Hopefully that clears it up.
His word describes both the good and bad of human affairs in all their sordidness. It also gives us a moral blueprint to work from, the Ten Commandments. Jesus sums up those ten in two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
So, to recap:God (OT and NT God are the same) is a perfect moral being whose unchanging Word not only forms the basis of morality, but is in itself always perfectly moral. Agree?
What do you mean by that? He describes both the good and evil, the moral and the immoral, the perfect and the flawed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Speaking of a person (I - first-person singular pronoun - within the context) forgiving others for a wrong against them, not about societal justice.What informs your primary AXIOMS regarding "societal justice" (if-not-love)?
What is fair, what is equal, what is good, which again would tie into what is the loving thing to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not disputing your definition of "love".I'm asking how it is logically consistent with your idea of "justice".
Because evil is not condoned but condemned. How would it be loving to let someone continually torture or beat up some innocent person and not prevent them from doing so? Or how would it be loving to let someone murder person after person rather than preventing them from doing so?
(Love) 5 does not act unbecomingly....6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness,
Love is protective of the good. It does not condone evil. It rejoices in what is right. Thus, love is just.
I'm not seeing anything in there that would justify killing felons or protesting abortion.That would be something the government did for it is not for a citizen to take revenge but for the state to apply justice (except in cases of self-defence or protecting others from wrong). And love is just. A good judge will not wink at wrongs. He will punish them or else there would be no justice. Without the state/government applying justice there would be anarchy. People would do whatever evil they liked without any consequences.Can a judge act in accordance with your definition of "love"?
A judge is there to uphold the law. He can have compassion and give a second chance for bad things done but not against evil and unrepentant malice. That would not be acting in a loving or just way. He would not be protecting others, therefore unloving.
Doesn't it keep no record of wrongs?
Speaking of a person (I - first-person singular pronoun - within the context) forgiving others for a wrong against them, not about societal justice.
If a father's two-year-old girl continually hits her younger baby brother the father can disciple her (justice) in love so that she too will learn what is right and what is wrong rather than let her hurt her baby brother. To ignore her actions would be unloving both to her and to her baby brother. It would encourage her to continue her actions while also hurting her brother.
Doesn't your hypothetical god punish evil?
My God is hypothetical to you, not me. Yes, He punishes evil. How would a judge be good if he continually ignored evil and rewarded it? There is a time when God will judge our actions and motives. That keeps some in check or it tends to harden us to God because we don't want Him pointing out what is the right action. A person committing adultery is not acting lovingly towards his wife/her husband since they made that commitment to each other to love each other. Instead, he hurts her or in the case of the woman, she hurts him. While doing evil we do not want to be reminded of our unlovingness. Thus, we ignore and deny God because we do not want to face this fact. We do not want to be reminded that we have wronged others. So we continue to act unjustly and unlovingly towards them.
How can you say that the state must enforce laws, otherwise there are no consequences?
It means to allow evil would be unloving and unjust.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.(IFF) this is your primary guiding statement, if this is the foundation of your idea of morality and law (THEN) you're the most radical pacifist, peacenik, tree-hugging, kumbaya singing, doormat hippie I've every met.It is not self-seeking?
Do you believe that love should seek its own way over that of those it holds dear?
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
I believe this tells me not to take the law into my own hands and to be compassionate to those who offend you instead of seeking revenge. God will repay for vengeance is His. He will judge justly. That is not up to me.
[ Self-denial on Behalf of Others ] Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves. 2 Each of us is to please his neighbor for his good, to his edification. 3 For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me.”
Matthew 5:3-11
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.5 “Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
It keeps no record of wrongs?
Those who cannot forgive are like someone who has indigestion. It is not not what they have eaten but what is eating them. It is a piece of baggage those who hold a grudge carry with them. The other person may not even know of the grudge but it eats the person holding it up with hatred or resentment.
Matthew 6:14-15
14 For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive [i]others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.
After God has forgiven me my debts, my sins, how would it be if I did not do the same to others? Thus, if I have a grievance against a loved one I should settle it before I go to sleep. That is a good principle to live with.
I'm not seeing anything in there that would justify killing felons or protesting abortion.
That would be something the government did for it is not for a citizen to take revenge but for the state to apply justice (except in cases of self-defence or protecting others from wrong). And love is just. A good judge will not wink at wrongs. He will punish them or else there would be no justice. Without the state/government applying justice there would be anarchy. People would do whatever evil they liked without any consequences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Israel's theocratic law was an eye for an eye.Is this what you're advocating?
I'm saying that someone who murders someone else does not receive the same recompense he/she gave without the court system taking their life also. Many times those left behind feel that justice is not equal. Their loved one is no longer alive while the perpetrator of the crime is.
Whatever happened to "love thine enemies and pray for those who persecute you"?
The principle is still there. We are speaking about justice and whether capital punishment is just.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Gods word is the basis of moralityBut we firmly agree though, that God is a wild assumption.
It is to some.
Therefore morality is also a human assumption.
Again, to some. The question with subjective, relative morality what is good? Who determines it?
More or less wild, depending on the subjectivity of the practitioner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
No, His word is eternal and unchanging.And does God ever go back on, or change His word?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
The entity the Christians called God is a trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the one true God.Ok, so the God in the NT is the same as the one in the OT, correct?
True, just a greater revelation.
This very forum is one of those flaws. (^8I spend way too much time here and not enough time with my wife.Fair enough.Yes, we see this in His nature as well as in what He says as revealed in the Bible.Ok. For the sake of argument, I can say that we both agree on this point.God is and His word reflects His nature and goodness just like your words can be a reflection of your beliefs and what drives you or what is important to you.Ok. So we can firmly agree, for the sake of argument, that God's word is the basis of morality.
True, and His word reveals His nature that we can understand and comprehend it, just not comprehensively of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
What makes you do so? The seven deadly sins? Something else? Please elaborateSometimes I do not put God/Jesus first but myself.1. So God and Jesus are the same entity, right?
The entity the Christians called God is a trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the one true God.
2. What specific flaws compel you to do this?
This very forum is one of those flaws. (^8
I spend way too much time here and not enough time with my wife.
God = the perfect moral being.Ok. So whatever this perfect moral being says/does is, definitionally speaking, moral. Correct?
Yes, we see this in His nature as well as in what He says as revealed in the Bible.
God's word = revelation of some of what is right and wrong and the principles for rightly living by looking to Him and His revelation plus His commands on what not to do. In those commands, we have all the principles for right living. Much of western law was based on biblical laws.So, God's word is the basis of morality. Right?
God is and His word reflects His nature and goodness just like your words can be a reflection of your beliefs and what drives you or what is important to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
PS. I think this expresses my point on AG Barr better:
This is unprecedented.
Not only this but I hear the IG report will be a blistering near thousand page report. That is going to uncover a lot of what I believe Democrats continually deny and seem oblivious to. That should be out in the first week of December since Mr. Horowitz is schedule to speak before the Senate on December 11th. If anyone can vote for one of these Democrat presidential runners or supports such a wicked party, IMO, after that they need to examine their belief in justice and fairness, IMO.
I believe you will find you have been fed a pack of lies for over three years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
My desires and wants ignore God's good commands and I sin.What makes you do so? The seven deadly sins? Something else? Please elaborate
Sometimes I do not put God/Jesus first but myself.
Also, just to clarify, God’s Words = The perfect morality, correct?
God = the perfect moral being.
God's word = revelation of some of what is right and wrong and the principles for rightly living by looking to Him and His revelation plus His commands on what not to do. In those commands, we have all the principles for right living. Much of western law was based on biblical laws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In the NT Paul urges Christians to obey the laws of the land because God has allowed the ruler for a time. Now if that ruler is unjust we are to pray to God for that ruler and against the unjust practice.So why do people protest abortion?
People have various reasons. For the Christian who understands that God does not endorse humans killing/murdering innocent beings, we protest because the truth needs to be heard and the most defenceless and helpless need protecting.
Shouldn't they just pray extra hard?
Why can't we express our godly outrage and disgust too at what is happening and give our reasons why this should not be so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is a precaution until the trial to keep the person in jail because of the risk of flight. BUT, in the court of law, the person is considered innocent until proven guilty.It's pretty hard to be "presumed innocent" if you're brought into the court-room in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit.Perfectly innocent people lose their jobs if they can't make bail.
And yet how just would it be if you presumed the person guilty without hearing their side of the case and you made that judgment on them just based on their outfit or the hand-cuffs? How would that be fair?
That would be discrimination of the person when acquitted if they had lost their job because they were innocent and had situations beyond their control and in which the employer acted unjustly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime. There has to be evidence that a crime has been committed.I agree. So, with that in mind, what crime is Hunter Biden accused of??
It is his father that needs investigating of criminal behaviour because of what he said in light of Ukraine. It was a quid pro quo moment. If you do not fire the prosecutor you do not get the one billion in aid. Meanwhile, the prosecutor was investigating Biden's son's company as to corruption. Hunter was getting paid around 50-80,000 for something he knew very little about. In an interview, he said it was probably because of his father he got the job. So, Joe used his political clout not only then but also with China and why did China reward Hunter's company with 1.5 billion? Again, they wanted influence in the Whitehouse.
You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime.
Greg Jarrett identified a number of criminal violations.
You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime.
The crimes have been identified.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 USC 78dd-1)
Bribery (18 USC 201(b))
Gratuities (18 USC 201(c))
Hobbs Act Extortion (18 USC 1951)
You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime.
Ibid from my last reply.
You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime.
And again!
You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime.You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime.
Ibid, ibid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But, strangely, the Germans weren't "punished for their hostility to Israel and not yielding to god's commands".I'm just sayin.
They lost the war but what makes you think that the Jews were still in covenant with God at this time in history? Not only that, Israel as a country did not exist at that time.
This god of yours seems pretty capricious and tyrannical. I'm not sure we can rely on it to epitomize perfectly objective morality.
How well do you understand ANE history and the times?
You failed to address the hypocrisy of saying, "the inhabitants of Jericho were evils and god destroyed them" with "but god didn't seem to care about destroying any evil people in recent history".
The Bible is concerned primarily with OT Israel. God chose these people to make Himself known to the world through. God has given His word. It is the means He usually uses to make Himself known today along with believers who point to Him via His word.
Wholesale slaughter of children seems to be ok in some situations but not in others.
Again, any innocent life God takes He will restore since He is just. But heaven help those who take the life of the innocent child.
What objective standard does your god use to decide when child slaughter is appropriate and when it isn't?
God does not condone child slaughter by human beings. In the case of Israel and the Promised Land, He commanded that Israel clear the land of the evil inhabitants. If He takes an innocent life He restores it. In the case of His objectivity, He is the standard. The standard is His omniscience combined His perfectly good nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But it is not lawful to allow illegal immigrants to enter our countries unlawfully. They should be prosecuted for doing this.Historically this has been a civil violation, punishable with a reasonable fine, not a criminal charge.
The criminal charge is usually deportation. Obama deported 1,200,000 in his first three years of office and 2.5 to 3 million during his presidency.
The objection comes when Trump decides to do the same, then the double-standard.
Also, these people are not assigned an attorney and even small children are expected to represent themselves in immigration court (which rubber stamp denies 90% of cases).
You are either a country of laws or anything goes. I haven't looked into this aspect but I presume you have? I can only offer conjecture since I have other things I'm working on at the moment. With the sheer numbers of people coming into the country the immigration services would be overwhelmed and the possibility of obtaining a lawyer I think would be reduced. Also, those without parents would necessarily be shipped back to their countries ASAP to reunite. Those whose parents had broken the law would in most cases I imagine suffer the same fate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I am not against protecting anyone from violence unless they themselves are threatening or violent themselves.So, you're against incarcerating young children and deporting them into dangerous areas?
Yes, but I am also against their parents illegally bringing them into your country so that they will get a pass. The parents are the ones who risk the lives of their offspring. The parents are the ones who put them into the hands of coyotes and endanger their offsprings. Child traffickers look for all kinds of loopholes to enter the USA. Many of these children are used as pawns to gain illegal entry into your country. Thus, the children have to be housed somewhere until their parents can be located. Open borders encourage all kinds of illegalities and ways to circumvent the law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
My question was:Would you say that you would always take the moral high ground on every other moral issue?Your answer was no. This means that there is something compelling you to go against what you believe to be the moral high ground (your moral compass) more strongly than the moral aspect of the issue itself, in certain cases. I'm asking about what is the thing that makes you go against your moral compass in those cases.In other words, if you know that one choice is more moral than another (we are dealing with moral issues here), and yet you choose the more immoral choice in certain cases, what is that thing that compels you to do so?
My desires and wants ignore God's good commands and I sin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It would be based on the laws of the land we live in or even international law.Wait, what?I thought all laws were supposed to be based on god's laws?
We both know that is not the case. If it was we would expect justice in all cases. Even so, some of the laws still are based on God's laws, others are not. Abortion is a law that is not. It does not treat the innocent justly, the heart and soul of equal justice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What is more just than a convicted criminal, guilty of murder, proven beyond doubt, answering with his/her life? A life for a life if an innocent life was maliciously taken?It just doesn't sound very "pro-life".
Pro-life is a stance against abortion, except when the woman's life is threatened and there is no way to save the unborn (i.e. if the woman dies the unborn will automatically die because it is not viable yet).
Pro-life is also for life but when someone is guilty of a crime of murder they should be punished, not by the individual but by the governing authorities.
So I ask, what is equal justice in the case of murder - the taking of innocent life?
AND, a lot of death-row inmates are being exonerated by DNA evidence, so, "proven beyond doubt" seems a little subjective.
That is why the evidence for the death penalty needs to be incontrovertible.
I am also not saying that an individual should take the law into their own hands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What is more just than a convicted criminal, guilty of murder, proven beyond doubt, answering with his/her life? A life for a life if an innocent life was maliciously taken?It just doesn't sound very "pro-life".AND, a lot of death-row inmates are being exonerated by DNA evidence, so, "proven beyond doubt" seems a little subjective.
It is not up to us individually to take the law into our own hands. Israel's theocratic law was an eye for an eye. The principles were equal justice when maliciousness was intended. So if you maliciously killed an innocent person they no longer have life on earth and you also deprive their loved ones of them. Not only that but their family contributes to their continued existence in prison if they are convicted. What could be given that would be equal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
God's word, a necessary objective and ultimate reference point.That can be distilled to, "love god and love others"?It seems a bit imprecise.
What do you think love is?
1 Corinthians 13 explains the Christian concept sufficiently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It would be based on the laws of the land we live in or even international law.Wait, what?I thought all laws were supposed to be based on god's laws?
The law of the land of Israel was theocratic, based on God's law. The surrounding nations were not. Israel was under covenant law. Other nations were not. Even Gentile nations understood some things that were right and wrong.
In the NT Paul urges Christians to obey the laws of the land because God has allowed the ruler for a time. Now if that ruler is unjust we are to pray to God for that ruler and against the unjust practice.
Romans 13
13 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
Yet Jesus gave Christians further instruction.
Matthew 5:13-16 (NASB)
Disciples and the World
13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.
14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; 15 nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Disciples and the World
13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.
14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; 15 nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Not only this, we are to stand for goodness, not evil.
Romans 12: 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
We are to expose the darkness. How will someone know what is good unless it becomes evident to them through sound reasoning?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Putting the charged in jail is a precaution so that the person will not run and escape justice and a fair trial if they are found guilty.That's called, "presumed guilty".Which is the opposite of, "presumed innocent".
It is a precaution until the trial to keep the person in jail because of the risk of flight. BUT, in the court of law, the person is considered innocent until proven guilty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
.PGA2.0,YOUR CONTINUED RUNNING AWAY FROM OUR INITIAL DISCUSSION EXCUSE: "What a complete cop-out. The time limit is two weeks between rounds. That gives you over two weeks, probably four per round, to hash an argument."AGAIN, reread my post #98, and if you can't understand its content, then again I suggest that you and your equally bible inept Ethang5 take the reading comprehension class that I gave the link too!You have RUN AWAY from our starting discussion MANY TIMES within this thread with little "girly excuses," and you expect others to take the needed time and enter a formal debate with you under your continued runaway status? Surely you jest! LOL!For the umpteenth time, I told you that I would discuss your Satanic and comical Preterist faith within this forum and if I am on the road at times without computer access, I will address your bible ineptness when I do, do you understand? If you can't accept this condition, or if the chicken feathers are piled too high around your computer for you to see your screen, then gracefully bow out to be ashamed even further on DEBATEART, understood? Yes?Your schooling, other than for me to easily Bible Slap you silly, must have stopped at 2nd grade. This is because my capitalization and underlining are for Headers that are to be brought out to show you just how Bible ignorant you and your Satanic cohort ethang5 truly are, understood?QUESTION: How are you going to RUN AWAY this time in front of DEBATEART and Jesus the Christ? (Hebrews 4:13)
You ran from the only kind of argument I want to have with you, one in which others judge the reasonableness of both sides instead of all this alleged stuff. You let it expire which shows that you were not willing to substantiate what you were saying. See ya.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
AND FURTHERMORE, IF YOU CAN'T INVESTIGATE A CRIME WITHOUT PROOF, WHAT CRIME IS HUNTER BIDEN ACCUSED OF??You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime. There has to be evidence that a crime has been committed.I agree. So, with that in mind, what crime is Hunter Biden accused of??
Ukraine used him to gain influence with his father, just like China did. When the company Hunter Biden worked for (with little experience or know-how), was being investigated for its corruption his father said on tape that if they did not end the investigation they would get no aid. Quid pro quo (this for that).
That means that Biden broke US law as a high ranking government employee.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Trump has already ADMITTED to soliciting foreign interference in an American Election. THIS IS AN ACTUAL CRIME.No, he has not.Oh, yes, he actually has. [LINK]
Okay. He asked that they investigate corruption in their country that lead to their country interfering in US politics. That involves any corruption by US involvement also. That would involve Biden, Clinton, and Obama. This was going on during their watch. They were dead bent on framing Trump. Trump asked his AG to investigate. On Saturday the AG hinted to the progressive Democrat bias and manipulation. We await the IG report, the FISA report, the Duran report to get to the bottom of this deception and hoax.
I think you need to wait until you hear both sides of this instead of jumping to the conclusions of Adam Shiff and angry Democrats hungry on power at any cost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think that Jericho was punished for its hostility to Israel and not yielding to God's commands,But, strangely, the Germans weren't "punished for their hostility to Israel and not yielding to god's commands".I'm just sayin.This god of yours seems pretty capricious and tyrannical. I'm not sure we can rely on it to epitomize perfectly objective morality.
God is concerned with sin, which hampers our relationship with Him.
To understand this relationship God showcases it through a people - Israel. The Bible is primarily concerned with God's revelation of Himself through these specific people (Israel). He makes Himself known to them that through their example and witness they will make Him known to the rest of the world. So, the biblical teaching is also primarily concerned about the covenant or relationship they agreed to with Him. He is interested in them staying obedient to that covenant because He wants to demonstrate that they (nor we) are capable of meeting those standards in maintaining that relationship. Thus, this failure is demonstrated throughout the history of Israel but even through this relationship, God is promising a better covenant that He will make with humanity through Another. Israel's works, their merit, are not sufficient. It is a lesson for all of us. That is why the New Covenant is said to be a covenant of grace, God's grace and mercy to us who fall short once again (like Adam did). Jesus, in obeying Him and having a relationship with Him who is pure and holy, without sin also accomplishes this for those who put their trust in Jesus because Jesus meets all our needs before God. He pays the penalty we deserve by suffering the wrath of God. By living a completely righteous life before God Jesus opens the way for us that was lost by Adam. That is a restored relationship in His presence, not merely like Israel who were prevented from that intimate presence except by representative (the high priest) and that only once a year to make provision for their sins until the next year. Jesus met that requirement of with His spotless sacrifice of Himself, living fully as the law required and meeting its every demand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How does "love god and love others" inform copyright law and or property disputes?Do not take property that does not belong to you. If a person wants to sell and you have the means, then buy.How does your old book inform something like, "patents shall grant the patent holder exclusive rights for no more than 20 years"?
It would be based on the laws of the land we live in or even international law. We are told to obey the laws of the land unless they go against God's righteous standard, then we are to speak up about the injustice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
No, I don't always take the moral high ground. Why not? I am flawed, just like you.If you don’t take the moral high ground for moral issues, then what else is guiding your decisions?
God's word, a necessary objective and ultimate reference point. Although I know what is right I may not always live up to the measure and concerning God, I never could live up to Him since He is perfect and I am not. Thus, I need what only God can give, grace and mercy from Another [Jesus] who has done what I could not do on my behalf.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No, not in self-defence, or law enforcement trying to stop a killer, or defend another innocent person against someone about to kill them, or in times of just war.What about the death-penalty?
What is more just than a convicted criminal, guilty of murder, proven beyond doubt, answering with his/her life? A life for a life if an innocent life was maliciously taken?
I'm just asking because it doesn't seem to qualify for any of your currently listed exceptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
All human beings.....equal worth.But can you put your hand on your heart and swear that you stick rigidly to that moral principle at all times?I see you no different than anyone else. I realize all human beings are given life by God and made in His image and likeness (although marred by the Fall), and deserve dignity and respect. Does that mean I do that at all times, or not get angry with myself/others, or am not selfish at times, or treat others always as I would like to be treated? No. I'm flawed, just like you.Does this mean you believe immigrants
By all means, they should be protected from injustice and violence when in our countries. It is ILLEGAL immigrants I object to having the same rights as citizens or being allowed to do something illegal (enter a country unlawfully) but they should not be treated with violence unless they threaten the citizens. Nevertheless, they should be arrested for illegal entry and if they are criminals (i.e., smuggling drugs of trafficking people) they should be prosecuted.
and asylum seekers
Depending on the circumstances they should be allowed entry and always protected from violence while in our countries unless they are themselves perpetrating violence.
should be protected from injustice and or violence in the same way that you (and or your close friends and family members) would want to be protected injustice and or violence?
I am not against protecting anyone from violence unless they themselves are threatening or violent themselves. But it is not lawful to allow illegal immigrants to enter our countries unlawfully. They should be prosecuted for doing this. If they want to enter our countries they should apply for entry and be willing to subjective themselves to the laws of our lands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We have a standard to measure injustice against.What is the standard?
The goodness of God.
"Love god and love others" is a purely subjective standard that doesn't appear to inform your view of policy.
Loving your neighbour as yourself is not wanting anything bad for your neighbour, and who is your neighbour? Jesus gave the example of the Samaritan. It is treating your neighbour or others in line with those Ten Commandments that deal with people rather than God.
Now, if that standard has been revealed by an all-knowing God then how can you say it is just my subjective standard?
If God has not revealed then everything moral is relative to subjective TASTE or preference. That is your opinion and choice, either a fixed objective, absolute, unchanging reference point or an ever-shifting, subjective, relative standard. With a relative standard, the question then shifts to how do you arrive at 'good'? How is one opinion and preference any better than another?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not to go searching for crimes but to investigate them.Do you even know how criminal investigations work?
Yes, corruption is found, investigated, and documented. There is evidence for the crime, not just searching for a crime. The charged is then allowed to defend themselves in court and is presumed innocent until proven guilty. With Trump, they make up the crimes and then go searching for the evidence while barring him from legal representation or even calling witnesses in his defence. They made up a fictitious 2-year investigation into Trump's "collusion" with Russia only to find there was no such thing. What they claimed he did they were guilty of doing, just as is the case with Ukraine. This is corruption its utmost. Shiff is as dishonest as they come. He is one sick individual that is motivated by his hatred, not wanting to do the right thing.
This is a partisan and one-sided kangaroo court. Anyone who is a Democrat supporter should think twice about what is happening here if they are capable of thinking fairly. For some, I doubt that is now possible.
If you are accused of a serious crime - you are dragged off to jail - before you are convicted.
You are allowed a legal defence to prove your innocence. Not so with Trump. This dishonest Shiff is manipulating the process and setting a whole new precedent that is dishonest and undesirable for America in the future. It side-steps your Constitution by ignoring its procedures.
Then a judge tells you if they will allow you to post bail, so you can await trial in relative freedom.Then there is a trial.You are presumed guilty when you are accused. Otherwise, why would you be thrown in jail and forced to post bail?
Presumed by whom? By those collecting the evidence or witnessing the event or crime. Presumed guilty? or presumed innocent? until proven guilty under the law? I think you have it backwards. How well do you know the law?
Investigating crimes = searching for crimes.
Charges come once the crime has been investigated or witnessed, not before. Then the guilty person is allowed to present his/her side of the case.
Democrats are accusing Trump of a crime before they have presented evidence. They are still fishing for evidence in search of a crime.
Even then shifty Shiff is not allowing a due process or any fairness.The US Constitution grants the House of Representatives BROAD DISCRETION ON IMPEACHMENT.
But impeachment is a serious process that is to be used only in dire circumstances. Right now the discretion is solely one-sided and at the command of one, Adam Shiff, who has been proven over and over to be a dishonest person. He said he had all kinds of evidence on Russian collusion yet never, never offered one bit, just idle speculation and innuendo as he is also doing here.
Comparing this to a standard criminal investigation is ridiculous.
Yes, it is a mock trial by the Democrats.
The law states innocent until proven guilty.What law is that? And why are people forced to spend time in jail BEFORE they are convicted?
The US law as well as international law. Putting the charged in jail is a precaution so that the person will not run and escape justice and a fair trial if they are found guilty. Because the evidence is compelling to law enforcement the person is charged and put in jail. (see my Wikipedia link above on the presumption of innocence)
The Dems have already convicted Him of guilt without showing any crimes but they continue to look.Trump has already ADMITTED to soliciting foreign interference in an American Election. THIS IS AN ACTUAL CRIME.
No, he has not. He has asked for an investigation into the 2016 election because he does not want what happened then to ever happen again. Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, and the Democrats were digging up dirt on him during that election. Hilary obtained, with the help of the DNC, a now-debunked dossier (Steel Dossier) by a witness that will not vest for what he wrote. Trump has also questioned whether Ukraine will use the aid without corruption taking place.
AND FURTHERMORE, IF YOU CAN'T INVESTIGATE A CRIME WITHOUT PROOF, WHAT CRIME IS HUNTER BIDEN ACCUSED OF??
You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime. There has to be evidence that a crime has been committed. I'm convinced the only ones that are criminals here are the Democrats, leading all the way back to the Obama Whitehouse and a big coverup. What crime have the Democrats charged Trump with? They have changed him with pay to play (Quid pro quo), trying to affect an upcoming election, then bribery, then obstruction of justice. The goal posts keep shifting by shifty Shiff. He is searching for a crime.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/11/trump-democrats-pursuing-unconstitutional-impeachment/
What is this impeachment trial/inquiry all about? It is about smearing the President and influencing the thought process of Americans so they will be inclined to vote for a party that has not done one single thing for the people since they gained the majority in the Congress except try and topple a duly elected president because they don't think they can win an election. It is about regaining power at any cost by one party - the Democrats, regardless of whether that means breaking the law or manipulating it to their gain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
OT Israel was dispersed during the victory and destruction of Jerusalem and Israel in AD 70. After that Israel could no longer live up to the covenant in the prescribed way they had agreed to. The curses of Deuteronomy 28 was poured out on them for their disobedience.And everything was just peachy for them before AD 70??
Not at all. They had continually disobeyed God throughout their history since they agreed to the covenant. God sent prophets and teachers to warn them against their idolatry and godless ways. They ignored all those God sent to them and continued to disrespect God despite the warning of Deuteronomy 28.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Isreal was going into the Promised Land, before the exile, before the Romans. God had already brought judgment on Egypt for their harsh treatment of Israel.Yeah, but the point here is that god didn't kill every single Roman and or Egyptian. Why not? If evil must be destroyed, like Sodom & Gomorrah, then why did your god allow any Romans and Egyptians to live?
Simple answer, I don't know, but possibly God still found righteous people among them or possibly because they had not reached the full measure of their sins or because He showed His mercy to them. After the Flood, God promised He would never destroy the world as He had done again. That did not stop Him, however, from telling Israel to clean the land of evil and evil influences before they made their home there.
Why would it be "good" to slaughter Jericho, but not Rome?
I will speculate since I did not find the reason in Scripture although it could be there. I think that Jericho was punished for its hostility to Israel and not yielding to God's commands, even after they had heard what God did to Egypt, yet Rahab the harlot and her family were spared because she aided and hid the messengers of Israel. Jericho could have given the Israelites passage and been spared. Another possible reason for Jericho's punishment is that it was opposed to God and the inhabitants if spared, would have corrupted Israel and influenced her with their foreign gods and false practices and beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
God is concerned with His people and with their relationship to Him. He does not want foreign peoples to influence the way Israel worshiped or the way God was instructing them to live.Do you believe this still applies today?
We live under a new covenant, not like the old. It is a covenant of God's grace administered in Jesus Christ. We are spiritual Israel, not OT physical Israel. Thus we fight a spiritual battle.
Should god's followers drive out and or slaughter non-believers?
Christians fight a different battle. We fight against ideas and pretenses that set themselves up against the kingdom of God, not flesh and blood people (just what governs them).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Would you say that you are taking the moral high ground on the issue of abortion? Would you say that pro-choicers are immoral?
Defending the defenceless is definitely moral high ground.
Pro-choices are acting immorally, yes.
Follow-up question: Would you say that you would always take the moral high ground on every other moral issue? Why or why not?
No, I don't always take the moral high ground. Why not? I am flawed, just like you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Jesus summed my morality up in two commandments, love God and love others. Those two commandments sum up the Tem Commandments.(IFF) your primary moral AXIOMS are "love god and love others" (THEN) how do you apply these to practical-real-world laws?
By following as best I can 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, or Romans 13:8-10, or Matthew 6:14, and knowing there is One who has followed the way of God perfectly on my behalf.
How does "love god and love others" inform copyright law and or property disputes?
Do not take property that does not belong to you. If a person wants to sell and you have the means, then buy.
Do you have any other "immutable-objective-moral" AXIOMS that might help us better understand your idea of perfect "immutable-objective-moral" laws?
I have principles that I try to follow but I get in the way at times. One such principle is, do not repay evil with evil but repay evil with good. Hopefully, we have governing bodies to keep our societies just and fair. If they do not act justly then pray to God and/or oppose those who go against the will of God by them calling evil good, or pointing out the injustices. The light shines in the darkness so others can see the injustice. Season your words with salt. Sometimes I apply Proverbs 25:4-5.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Either all human beings have equal rights or any kook like Hitler, or Mao, or Stalin, or Xi, or Kim Jong-un, or apartheid, or the caste system, or slavery in the South, or Rwandan genocide, can devalue and destroy human life and not be accountable since human life is not consistently seen as equal.Are you opposed to any human killing another human??
No, not in self-defence, or law enforcement trying to stop a killer, or defend another innocent person against someone about to kill them, or in times of just war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
All human beings.....equal worth.But can you put your hand on your heart and swear that you stick rigidly to that moral principle at all times?
I see you no different than anyone else. I realize all human beings are given life by God and made in His image and likeness (although marred by the Fall), and deserve dignity and respect. Does that mean I do that at all times, or not get angry with myself/others, or am not selfish at times, or treat others always as I would like to be treated? No. I'm flawed, just like you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Well, during the debate I hope others deduct demerit points for poor grammar.That's why he can't debate. He didn't think his parody through. It gets old fast, and leaves him open to ridicule he can't address without breaking character.
I hope he does debate. He has just over 13 hours to decide.
I know one thing is sure, I'm not engaging in his juvenile posts anymore unless it has to do with the debate.
No wonder he does not notice the cap lock is on while he types. (^8I think there is a law for internet ....guys ... like brother dee dee that they must have a certain amount of caps, bolds, and underlines to stay in their union.We would have to actually read their vacuous posts to see it was empty if it wasn't for their ....unique posting styles.
It is hard to understand what is going on here. Caps sometimes denote anger, sometimes emphasizing a point, and sometimes denote raising one's voice. Is he screaming at the top of his lungs to be heard?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I take it then that you hold this issue as a moral one. Your moral stance is that killing unborn fetuses is immoral, and that abortion shouldn't happen at all. Correct?
Most definitely. If all human beings do not have intrinsic value (equal worth) anything can be justified.
Abortion should only happen, IMO, when the woman's life is threatened and without aborting the unborn it will kill her, and it too because of its early stage of development. So would argue that there are other times such as when the unborn will not survive because of a medical defect. Those two issues are only a small, minute number of all the abortions that take place throughout the world every day as some data reveals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Pro-life.Question: What is your stance on abortion?
The unborn is a human being and when you start treating one human being as not as valuable as another you open the door to injustice. Either all human beings have equal rights or any kook like Hitler, or Mao, or Stalin, or Xi, or Kim Jong-un, or apartheid, or the caste system, or slavery in the South, or Rwandan genocide, can devalue and destroy human life and not be accountable since human life is not consistently seen as equal. These murderers and dictators, or oligarchs, or corrupt governments, do not believe life is equally valuable (except when it is their own). Thus, you have the biggest genocide in human history to date. Over 1.5 billion human beings slaughtered since 1980 and even more since Roe v. Wade.
Created: