Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"My worldview is based on the inerrant word of God."
(set 24 days ago)
18,708 posts, read 6,807,738 times
Reputation: 3518
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
There's a fine recipe for a social collapse. There's a enablement for a dictator to say that the say-so of the one with the power is the only valid morality. There's an agenda for a theocracy. There's another fine mess you've gotten yourself into.
You're right. And that's why we're seeing our society implode in recent years.
Under that logic, our society today has no basis for declaring the holocaust as wrong.
No. Under You logic there is no basis for saying that the Holocaust - like slavery - was wrong. For the reason you give below:
Quote:
Completely different society, different time, place. He wasn't speaking to you or me when he said that, but was speaking to a nation of people living in the desert. He told them to not eat those things. He later said it was ok. So enjoy your crab legs in butter.
It is clear that people were writing their rules for themselves and ascribing them to a god for spurious authority.
If shellfish were unfit to eat in the 9th century BC, why are they ok to eat in the 1st Century AD? It's the whole new covenant problem. There is no valid reason for God to change his mind over anything as he would know long before what was right or wrong. Changing it makes perfect sense if you have different people with different opinions and needs writing a different book and saying it makes the previous one obsolete while hi -jacking their God - just as the Muslims did with Christianity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
You're right. And that's why we're seeing our society implode in recent years.
Don't worry. Enough people disagree with you to have voted in a bomb -disposal team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude
Like your reasons for immorality are not an opinion. Grow up.
Indeed. Even if BF does (as he probably will) reject my argument that the changes in the Bible reflect the different opinions of the people who wrote the various bits, and claims that it reflects the opinion of one person - God - it is still just an opinion, and the only justification is that he's string enough to do whatever he likes, break his own rules and still claim that he's perfect. There's nothing like it today out side of North Korea, except for what has been looming over us all for the past month.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-29-2021 at 09:54 AM..
Status:
"My worldview is based on the inerrant word of God."
(set 24 days ago)
18,708 posts, read 6,807,738 times
Reputation: 3518
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
No. Under You logic there is no basis for saying that the Holocaust - like slavery - was wrong. For the reason you give below:
It is clear that people were writing their rules for themselves and ascribing them to a god for spurious authority.
The Bible is clear that murder is wrong. It clearly condemns the holocaust. If you wish to say it's ok, that's your business. But no Christian alive could suggest it was good and hold to a Biblical worldview.
Quote:
If shellfish were unfit to eat in the 9th century BC, why are they ok to eat in the 1st Century AD? It's the whole new covenant problem. There is no valid reason for God to change his mind over anything as he would know long before what was right or wrong. Changing it makes perfect sense if you have different people with different opinions and needs writing a different book and saying it makes the previous one obsolete while hi -jacking their God - just as the Muslims did with Christianity.
Because he gave Peter permission and said it wasn't unclean.
Status:
"My worldview is based on the inerrant word of God."
(set 24 days ago)
18,708 posts, read 6,807,738 times
Reputation: 3518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty Water
I am right because Natural Law tells you so.
How is this "Natural Law" so evident to some, but not others?
For the record, you sound like you'd agree with the first chapter of Romans. We know what is right because God wrote it on our hearts. You want to call it the "Natural Law"? Ok. Sure. Fine.
Paul states that the unrighteous suppress the truth because their sin is more fun.
Welcome to the discussion. We've gotten past this point. Now please explain why that is true.
It amazes me how believers such as yourself, who rely solely and totally on a bunch of rubbish written thousands of years ago full of contradictions, and falsity, amounting to nothing more than a Fairy Tale, as their reference material would or could legitimately judge other's position which are based on rational thought and natural law.
As I said before, you are clueless because your "encyclopedia" is but a Fairy Tale from which no clues can be derived. It is rubbish.
How is this "Natural Law" so evident to some, but not others?
For the record, you sound like you'd agree with the first chapter of Romans. Paul states that the unrighteous suppress the truth because their sin is more fun.
How is this "Natural Law" so evident to some, but not others?
For the record, you sound like you'd agree with the first chapter of Romans. We know what is right because God wrote it on our hearts. You want to call it the "Natural Law"? Ok. Sure. Fine.
Paul states that the unrighteous suppress the truth because their sin is more fun.
The Bible is clear that murder is wrong. It clearly condemns the holocaust. If you wish to say it's ok, that's your business. But no Christian alive could suggest it was good and hold to a Biblical worldview.
Nice try to invert the argument. In fact it's clear from God's commands that the difference between murder and (acceptable) killing is he says do one but not the other - his own opinion, changed whenever he likes. Holocausts - many holocausts - were allowed by him without intervention; None. And evils happen all the rime without him lifting an invisible finger. A holocaust was done by him on a couple of occasions and you'll recall that he later regretted doing the first one. Is that the person you want as a moral dictator?
Quote:
Because he gave Peter permission and said it wasn't unclean.
You can't trust Acts, old son. Peter says he has never eaten anything unclean. That despite the gospels showing Jesus saying that nothing is unclean (Mark is specific). Why then is Peter making a fuss about the (10. 9) hammock of wrigglies? Only because Luke wants to validate the Pauline - Christian jettisoning of the Jewish law and rules by having Peter do it, or at least saying that God said it was Ok.
Apart from it being one of the least believable passages in the NT, it still doesn't alter the problem that God changed his mind on a commandment - as he changed his mind on the Sabbath observance, you remember - simply because he suddenly (according to Pauline Christianity, at least) developed a liking for Gentiles and didn't much care for Jews any more.
Or that's the message of the Gospels anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nice try to invert the argument. In fact it's clear from God's commands that the difference between murder and (acceptable) killing is he says do one but not the other - his own opinion, changed whenever he likes. Holocausts - many holocausts - were allowed by him without intervention; None. And evils happen all the rime without him lifting an invisible finger. A holocaust was done by him on a couple of occasions and you'll recall that he later regretted doing the first one. Is that the person you want as a moral dictator? 
Peter says he has never eaten anything unclean. That despite the gospels showing Jesus saying that nothing is unclean (Mark is specific). Why then is Peter making a fuss about the (10. 9) hammock of wrigglies? Only because Luke wants to validate the Pauline - Christian jettisoning of the Jewish law and rules by having Peter do it, or at least saying that God said it was Ok.