Deuteronomy 13:6-11

[ding]

I love these discussions because people can’t have it both ways. They can’t take a moral stand without acknowledging that morals are more than mere opinions.

I like that you feel free to tell people what they believe, and then pretend you're not some ass-hole seeking conflict on the internet!

I never claimed to be a saint or that I am behaving morally, GT.

You accuse others of what you do.

Sureeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee do, whatever helps your conflict and confusion process.

It’s not my conflict and confusion process. We all participate in it. It’s how objective truth is discovered.

 

[G.T.]

Stoning adulterers is Universally wrong

God says otherwise

God isn't where morals come or came from. You can ascertain them by measuring.

If that were the case then there should be no expectation that others should agree with you when you quarrel with them.

That's a false inference.

 

[G.T.]

Are you saying that people do not violate morals? That's really weird!

That people do something negates that it's right or wrong?

That's really weird!

Stoning adulterers is Universally wrong.

If everyone knew it is universally wrong to literally stone people to death it wouldn't still be happening now would it? Are you in denial that people in shithole countries do not still actually stone people to death?

I'm saying that when someone acts immorally, it doesn't make it moral. So the fact that people do it, in other words, does not make it moral.

Earthly minded humans all seem to have different concepts of what is moral.

Well, since morals are conceptual - that would seem to make sense because some people are smarter than others.

I agree some people do have more intelligence than others. Some have more common sense too; just like some are more spiritual connected than others. Various gifts are given even in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Preach it, Salami and bacon!! lol

 

[ding]

Stoning adulterers is Universally wrong

God says otherwise

God isn't where morals come or came from. You can ascertain them by measuring.

If that were the case then there should be no expectation that others should agree with you when you quarrel with them.

That's a false inference.

Then you should be able to explain how it is false rather than just making an accusation that it is false.

 

[ding]

If everyone knew it is universally wrong to literally stone people to death it wouldn't still be happening now would it? Are you in denial that people in shithole countries do not still actually stone people to death?

I'm saying that when someone acts immorally, it doesn't make it moral. So the fact that people do it, in other words, does not make it moral.

Earthly minded humans all seem to have different concepts of what is moral.

Well, since morals are conceptual - that would seem to make sense because some people are smarter than others.

I agree some people do have more intelligence than others. Some have more common sense too; just like some are more spiritual connected than others. Various gifts are given even in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Preach it, Salami and bacon!! lol

For any given thing there is a distribution.

 

[RodISHI]

To be stoned Biblically is to receive a measure of justice that is applied by and within one's own spirit, body, etc. i.e. Exodus 17:4 And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me.

View attachment 282389

There's recorded history, so if you're going to try to scapegoat the stonings as mere allegory of something that wasnt a physical/literal stoning, you're going to fail unfortunately.

I did not say it does not happen. I say the same thing Jesus Christ taught about which is walk to the Spirit. If one is walking (aka thinking) to the spirit they would know that physically injuring another human is wrong.

The old testament begged to differ with hay zeus, though. That is, and has been the point.

I disagree with your assessment. Jesus Christ means anointed with Jehovah's Salvation. When one has that anointing they are being awakened from that sleep (spiritual death) to be chased out of the garden of living to their own pleasures (Eden). That is explained if one takes the time to read through the first few chapters of where the hosts of heaven and earth are created before the human (Adam) is created.

 

[G.T.]

Stoning adulterers is Universally wrong

God says otherwise

God isn't where morals come or came from. You can ascertain them by measuring.

If that were the case then there should be no expectation that others should agree with you when you quarrel with them.

That's a false inference.

Then you should be able to explain how it is false rather than just making an accusation that it is false.

You'd have to go and study the case for moral objectivity in a secular framework, ding, because I don't have the patience for someone as fundamentally flawed in their reasoning as you are...that also adds in cockyness to coincide with their flaws...because that isn't my BAG, bayybayy.

Sorry, dude. BUUUuUUUt, as the offer has always stood, if you really need to see me make the case you can always ask someone else to ask me for ya

 

[G.T.]

To be stoned Biblically is to receive a measure of justice that is applied by and within one's own spirit, body, etc. i.e. Exodus 17:4 And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me.

View attachment 282389

There's recorded history, so if you're going to try to scapegoat the stonings as mere allegory of something that wasnt a physical/literal stoning, you're going to fail unfortunately.

I did not say it does not happen. I say the same thing Jesus Christ taught about which is walk to the Spirit. If one is walking (aka thinking) to the spirit they would know that physically injuring another human is wrong.

The old testament begged to differ with hay zeus, though. That is, and has been the point.

I disagree with your assessment. Jesus Christ means anointed with Jehovah's Salvation. When one has that anointing they are being awakened from that sleep (spiritual death) to be chased out of the garden of living to their own pleasures (Eden). That is explained if one takes the time to read through the first few chapters of where the hosts of heaven and earth are created before the human (Adam) is created.

And I disagree with yours ~ there we have it, disagreement! It's all gravy.

 

[RodISHI]

To be stoned Biblically is to receive a measure of justice that is applied by and within one's own spirit, body, etc. i.e. Exodus 17:4 And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me.

View attachment 282389

There's recorded history, so if you're going to try to scapegoat the stonings as mere allegory of something that wasnt a physical/literal stoning, you're going to fail unfortunately.

I did not say it does not happen. I say the same thing Jesus Christ taught about which is walk to the Spirit. If one is walking (aka thinking) to the spirit they would know that physically injuring another human is wrong.

The old testament begged to differ with hay zeus, though. That is, and has been the point.

I disagree with your assessment. Jesus Christ means anointed with Jehovah's Salvation. When one has that anointing they are being awakened from that sleep (spiritual death) to be chased out of the garden of living to their own pleasures (Eden). That is explained if one takes the time to read through the first few chapters of where the hosts of heaven and earth are created before the human (Adam) is created.

And I disagree with yours ~ there we have it, disagreement! It's all gravy.

I'd consider what comes out from those who have no faith and speak beyond their understand to be more consistent with whats comes out from those who have Dysentery rather than being akin to "gravy".

 

[G.T.]

There's recorded history, so if you're going to try to scapegoat the stonings as mere allegory of something that wasnt a physical/literal stoning, you're going to fail unfortunately.

I did not say it does not happen. I say the same thing Jesus Christ taught about which is walk to the Spirit. If one is walking (aka thinking) to the spirit they would know that physically injuring another human is wrong.

The old testament begged to differ with hay zeus, though. That is, and has been the point.

I disagree with your assessment. Jesus Christ means anointed with Jehovah's Salvation. When one has that anointing they are being awakened from that sleep (spiritual death) to be chased out of the garden of living to their own pleasures (Eden). That is explained if one takes the time to read through the first few chapters of where the hosts of heaven and earth are created before the human (Adam) is created.

And I disagree with yours ~ there we have it, disagreement! It's all gravy.

I'd consider what comes out from those who have no faith and speak beyond their understand to be more consistent with whats comes out from those who have Dysentery rather than being akin to "gravy".

Consistency is key!

 

[norwegen]

Would you be interest in a civil discussion about the purpose and value of prayer?

You don't have PM but I really do like everything about the Christian culture except prayer. I can't reconcile it or make any sense of it. I would like to read some good apologetic teachings on prayer. It is the one thing I can't grasp no matter how hard I try.

In my particular tradition people expend a lot of energy making prayer requests and such. I suspect very few people actually do it. Probably 92-97% of the prayer request are medically related. I know some people are healed of cancer and some people die of cancer. Is their a Christian doctrine that accurately represents prayer? The system in our tradition clearly doesn't work. I honestly want to have a discussion with you without all the sarcasm.

Nice try. Atheists are healed by doctors too.

The god of the Bible is omnipotent and doesn't need help from evil atheist doctors. If my child needed life saving surgery I would prefer going to a below average doctor (his worldview wouldn't matter to me) than the 100 best prayer warriors in the country. Doctors do all the hard work. God gets all the glory. If God did it then I wouldn't mind. But if people don't trust God and go to the doctor instead that is some hypocritical bull snot. Either you believe God heals or you don't. No Luke warm nonsense.

You know you're not going to live forever dont you?

When my mom was dying, it was like watching a clock wind down. The doctor even said that. He told us, it was her time. The doctor didnt heal. But God will at the Resurrection of the Dead.

You "teach" this stuff. If you were in tune with Him, you'd understand.

There is no Biblical explanation for why God heals some people that sincere people pray for and refuses to heal others that sincere people pray for.

The odds are only a little bit higher for those who are prayed for. The doctors can't heal everybody. If an omnipotent being exists then that omnipotent being can heal everybody. This means that there is no omnipotent being or that omnipotent being has no interest in healing in every scenario.

On a related note Jesus taught us how to pray in the Lord's prayer. Jesus didn't ask for anything selfish when he prayed. Maybe we shouldn't either. Asking for our friend to he healed is selfish. The best atheist argument so far is that God has never healed anybody of missing limbs.

There just has to be some bit of bull hockey in this prayer thing. It just doesn't smell right.

I imagine if I was in tune with God I would still remain clueless on this issue of praying for healing. It doesn't work. Well it does but not in the magical way that Christian's claim.

You are on milk and not meat. Sad, tragic since you're teaching, but it happens

You are here admitting that you are teaching children bad Christian theology that you don't believe. And lying about it.

And yet you're CRYING about "childish insults".

Really?

I wonder about the practical applications of prayer, too. I agree, the statistics are clear: prayer for outcomes serves no purpose.

Jesus instructed his apostles to pray that God's will be done not only in heaven but also on earth, but now that that is accomplished - now that heaven and earth are one dominion under one authority - how do we pray now?

Perhaps we pray to remind ourselves that our blessings come from God.

 

[diver52]

Stoning adulterers is Universally wrong

God says otherwise

God isn't where morals come or came from. You can ascertain them by measuring.

I agree with you, but you do have a problem. You claim at least some acts are universally immoral. So if morals don't come from some god and don't come for individuals or societies (which means they aren't universal) where do they come from?

 

[G.T.]

Stoning adulterers is Universally wrong

God says otherwise

God isn't where morals come or came from. You can ascertain them by measuring.

I agree with you, but you do have a problem. You claim at least some acts are universally immoral. So if morals don't come from some god and don't come for individuals or societies (which means they aren't universal) where do they come from?

The conceptualization of Morals came from Man's sentience.

Cause and effect, which is basically what morals are as they pertain to a goal, come from Nature.

 

[diver52]

Stoning adulterers is Universally wrong

God says otherwise

God isn't where morals come or came from. You can ascertain them by measuring.

I agree with you, but you do have a problem. You claim at least some acts are universally immoral. So if morals don't come from some god and don't come for individuals or societies (which means they aren't universal) where do they come from?

The conceptualization of Morals came from Man's sentience.

Cause and effect, which is basically what morals are as they pertain to a goal, come from Nature.

A concept is not a universal moral. You have said that specific acts are universally immoral. But those acts clearly have been held as moral in societies past and perhaps present. If morals are just behavior of humanity, then acts held as moral by one individual can't be universal. A universal moral has to come from without.

Which, btw, is why I see all morality as subjective and not universal.

 

[diver52]

Stoning adulterers is Universally wrong

God says otherwise

God isn't where morals come or came from. You can ascertain them by measuring.

I agree with you, but you do have a problem. You claim at least some acts are universally immoral. So if morals don't come from some god and don't come for individuals or societies (which means they aren't universal) where do they come from?

The conceptualization of Morals came from Man's sentience.

Cause and effect, which is basically what morals are as they pertain to a goal, come from Nature.

I'm sorry. I glossed over your last statement. You use Nature rather than nature. I'm not sure what the capital letter means to your use of the word. I don't think of nature as caring about whether or not John and Jenny get stoned by the village. Could you expand on that?

 

[G.T.]

Stoning adulterers is Universally wrong

God says otherwise

God isn't where morals come or came from. You can ascertain them by measuring.

I agree with you, but you do have a problem. You claim at least some acts are universally immoral. So if morals don't come from some god and don't come for individuals or societies (which means they aren't universal) where do they come from?

The conceptualization of Morals came from Man's sentience.

Cause and effect, which is basically what morals are as they pertain to a goal, come from Nature.

A concept is not a universal moral. You have said that specific acts are universally immoral. But those acts clearly have been held as moral in societies past and perhaps present. If morals are just behavior of humanity, then acts held as moral by one individual can't be universal. A universal moral has to come from without.

Which, btw, is why I see all morality as subjective and not universal.

I think you read past what I actually said.

Morals are merely the NAME we gave to cause and effect when we conceptualized them...the same way we gave "two" a name. "Two" is just a concept, but that which it describes actually, objectively exists.

Cause and effect, that which morals describe, objectively exist.

What folks CONSIDER moral and not is irrelevant to the outcome that Nature gives to their behaviors. Gives not meaning as in like an Agent "gives," by the way.

 

[G.T.]

Stoning adulterers is Universally wrong

God says otherwise

God isn't where morals come or came from. You can ascertain them by measuring.

I agree with you, but you do have a problem. You claim at least some acts are universally immoral. So if morals don't come from some god and don't come for individuals or societies (which means they aren't universal) where do they come from?

The conceptualization of Morals came from Man's sentience.

Cause and effect, which is basically what morals are as they pertain to a goal, come from Nature.

I'm sorry. I glossed over your last statement. You use Nature rather than nature. I'm not sure what the capital letter means to your use of the word. I don't think of nature as caring about whether or not John and Jenny get stoned by the village. Could you expand on that?

I give Nature a capital letter only sometimes, if I think of it, and only because it's a name and I usually capitalize names.

I'm not implying Nature cares, or has any Agency. I'm invoking Nature in the sense that it has causes and it has effects, and we can measure them apart from Bias using the Scientific Method and the Laws of Logic.

 

[diver52]

God says otherwise

God isn't where morals come or came from. You can ascertain them by measuring.

I agree with you, but you do have a problem. You claim at least some acts are universally immoral. So if morals don't come from some god and don't come for individuals or societies (which means they aren't universal) where do they come from?

The conceptualization of Morals came from Man's sentience.

Cause and effect, which is basically what morals are as they pertain to a goal, come from Nature.

A concept is not a universal moral. You have said that specific acts are universally immoral. But those acts clearly have been held as moral in societies past and perhaps present. If morals are just behavior of humanity, then acts held as moral by one individual can't be universal. A universal moral has to come from without.

Which, btw, is why I see all morality as subjective and not universal.

I think you read past what I actually said.

Morals are merely the NAME we gave to cause and effect when we conceptualized them...the same way we gave "two" a name. "Two" is just a concept, but that which it describes actually, objectively exists.

Cause and effect, that which morals describe, objectively exist.

What folks CONSIDER moral and not is irrelevant to the outcome that Nature gives to their behaviors. Gives not meaning as in like an Agent "gives," by the way.

Ok. Then why is stoning for infidelity universally immoral?

 

[G.T.]

God isn't where morals come or came from. You can ascertain them by measuring.

I agree with you, but you do have a problem. You claim at least some acts are universally immoral. So if morals don't come from some god and don't come for individuals or societies (which means they aren't universal) where do they come from?

The conceptualization of Morals came from Man's sentience.

Cause and effect, which is basically what morals are as they pertain to a goal, come from Nature.

A concept is not a universal moral. You have said that specific acts are universally immoral. But those acts clearly have been held as moral in societies past and perhaps present. If morals are just behavior of humanity, then acts held as moral by one individual can't be universal. A universal moral has to come from without.

Which, btw, is why I see all morality as subjective and not universal.

I think you read past what I actually said.

Morals are merely the NAME we gave to cause and effect when we conceptualized them...the same way we gave "two" a name. "Two" is just a concept, but that which it describes actually, objectively exists.

Cause and effect, that which morals describe, objectively exist.

What folks CONSIDER moral and not is irrelevant to the outcome that Nature gives to their behaviors. Gives not meaning as in like an Agent "gives," by the way.

Ok. Then why is stoning for infidelity universally immoral?

Because Death leads to greater Human Suffering and effects more people than Adultery does. Adultery is also immoral. Also immoral, is punishments that cause more harm than the crimes.

 

[diver52]

I agree with you, but you do have a problem. You claim at least some acts are universally immoral. So if morals don't come from some god and don't come for individuals or societies (which means they aren't universal) where do they come from?

The conceptualization of Morals came from Man's sentience.

Cause and effect, which is basically what morals are as they pertain to a goal, come from Nature.

A concept is not a universal moral. You have said that specific acts are universally immoral. But those acts clearly have been held as moral in societies past and perhaps present. If morals are just behavior of humanity, then acts held as moral by one individual can't be universal. A universal moral has to come from without.

Which, btw, is why I see all morality as subjective and not universal.

I think you read past what I actually said.

Morals are merely the NAME we gave to cause and effect when we conceptualized them...the same way we gave "two" a name. "Two" is just a concept, but that which it describes actually, objectively exists.

Cause and effect, that which morals describe, objectively exist.

What folks CONSIDER moral and not is irrelevant to the outcome that Nature gives to their behaviors. Gives not meaning as in like an Agent "gives," by the way.

Ok. Then why is stoning for infidelity universally immoral?

Because Death leads to greater Human Suffering and effects more people than Adultery does. Adultery is also immoral. Also immoral, is punishments that cause more harm than the crimes.

Not to be crass, but so what? A village isn't just a group of people, it is the way in which people survive. Alone a person is weak. In a village people become top of the food chain. Adultery causes friction within the village and stoning is a method to prevent adultery. So stoning John and Jenny is, by your logic, the only moral move.

Your job as a human being is to create children and keep them alive long enough to create other children. If you find a little happiness, that is a nice sidebar. But it is in no way necessary to your job.