The true living God

[ding]

Let’s say someone is trying to harm you and you defend yourself and end up killing him. Is it better to say killing is wrong or that killing is right?

I say it is the lesser of two evils and I should feel bad for doing it. Evil does not occur overnight. It is a gradual erosion of a standard until one day putting Jews in oven is seen as moral.

So you claim there is a hard-wired moral standard for right and wrong but in this case there is no right OR wrong. Whatever your choice, you are neither right nor wrong. Seems like your fantasy of right and wrong just crashed into reality.

It is hard to practice the Golden Rule if others do not.

So you are saying it is hard for you to not commit murder because there is a standard that we shouldn’t but other people do it any way?

 

[ding]

Then you must believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, right?

It's not that, I just don't believe that all behaviors can be categorized as either right or wrong. And I think I just proved it.

I am willing to bet in your personal life that you have done that.

It’s the basis of your behaviors. This invisible law of common decency that you believe everyone understands and should follow. Except of course when you don’t and then you had a good reason not to.

 

[alang1216]

Let’s say someone is trying to harm you and you defend yourself and end up killing him. Is it better to say killing is wrong or that killing is right?

I say it is the lesser of two evils and I should feel bad for doing it. Evil does not occur overnight. It is a gradual erosion of a standard until one day putting Jews in oven is seen as moral.

So you claim there is a hard-wired moral standard for right and wrong but in this case there is no right OR wrong. Whatever your choice, you are neither right nor wrong. Seems like your fantasy of right and wrong just crashed into reality.

It is hard to practice the Golden Rule if others do not.

Im sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. It is morally wrong.

You're still not clear. Which was morally wrong:

1. killing someone who tries to kill you and violating the Golden Rule or
   
2. allowing someone who tries to kill you to succeed

Was the other choice morally right?

 

[ding]

Let’s say someone is trying to harm you and you defend yourself and end up killing him. Is it better to say killing is wrong or that killing is right?

I say it is the lesser of two evils and I should feel bad for doing it. Evil does not occur overnight. It is a gradual erosion of a standard until one day putting Jews in oven is seen as moral.

So you claim there is a hard-wired moral standard for right and wrong but in this case there is no right OR wrong. Whatever your choice, you are neither right nor wrong. Seems like your fantasy of right and wrong just crashed into reality.

It is hard to practice the Golden Rule if others do not.

Im sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. It is morally wrong.

You're still not clear. Which was morally wrong:

1. killing someone who tries to kill you and violating the Golden Rule or
   
2. allowing someone who tries to kill you to succeed

Was the other choice morally right?

I don’t know how I can say it any more clearly than it is wrong to kill. It should be avoided at all costs. I can’t think of a higher standard than that. Can you? I will leave it to you to interpret it in a manner or way that satisfies your bias.

 

[Taz]

Let’s say someone is trying to harm you and you defend yourself and end up killing him. Is it better to say killing is wrong or that killing is right?

I say it is the lesser of two evils and I should feel bad for doing it. Evil does not occur overnight. It is a gradual erosion of a standard until one day putting Jews in oven is seen as moral.

So you claim there is a hard-wired moral standard for right and wrong but in this case there is no right OR wrong. Whatever your choice, you are neither right nor wrong. Seems like your fantasy of right and wrong just crashed into reality.

It is hard to practice the Golden Rule if others do not.

Im sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. It is morally wrong.

You're still not clear. Which was morally wrong:

1. killing someone who tries to kill you and violating the Golden Rule or
   
2. allowing someone who tries to kill you to succeed

Was the other choice morally right?

I don’t know how I can say it any more clearly than it is wrong to kill. It should be avoided at all costs. I can’t think of a higher standard than that. Can you? I will leave it to you to interpret it in a manner or way that satisfies your bias.

God killed nearly everyone on earth, so that was wrong?

 

[ding]

Let’s say someone is trying to harm you and you defend yourself and end up killing him. Is it better to say killing is wrong or that killing is right?

I say it is the lesser of two evils and I should feel bad for doing it. Evil does not occur overnight. It is a gradual erosion of a standard until one day putting Jews in oven is seen as moral.

So you claim there is a hard-wired moral standard for right and wrong but in this case there is no right OR wrong. Whatever your choice, you are neither right nor wrong. Seems like your fantasy of right and wrong just crashed into reality.

It is hard to practice the Golden Rule if others do not.

Im sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. It is morally wrong.

You're still not clear. Which was morally wrong:

1. killing someone who tries to kill you and violating the Golden Rule or
   
2. allowing someone who tries to kill you to succeed

Was the other choice morally right?

I don’t know how I can say it any more clearly than it is wrong to kill. It should be avoided at all costs. I can’t think of a higher standard than that. Can you? I will leave it to you to interpret it in a manner or way that satisfies your bias.

God killed nearly everyone on earth, so that was wrong?

Everyone dies.

You should stop reading the Bible literally.

 

[alang1216]

So you are saying it is hard for you to not commit murder because there is a standard that we shouldn’t but other people do it any way?

Murder connotes a judgement so I've avoided using it. I'm not sure what your Mobius strip of a sentence is asking me. I would defend myself and my family, no question. Would I feel bad about it? Probably not. Would I have to rationalize that I've violated some hard-wired moral code? Not one bit.

 

[alang1216]

I don’t know how I can say it any more clearly than it is wrong to kill. It should be avoided at all costs. I can’t think of a higher standard than that. Can you? I will leave it to you to interpret it in a manner or way that satisfies your bias.

OK, here is my interpretation of this hard-wired moral code: killing is wrong unless it isn't, it should be avoided unless it shouldn't.

 

[ding]

So you are saying it is hard for you to not commit murder because there is a standard that we shouldn’t but other people do it any way?

Murder connotes a judgement so I've avoided using it. I'm not sure what your Mobius strip of a sentence is asking me. I would defend myself and my family, no question. Would I feel bad about it? Probably not. Would I have to rationalize that I've violated some hard-wired moral code? Not one bit.

I was just using your logic to show the ridiculousness of your position.

You have a really hard time of separating standards from acts. The acts do not negate the standard. Standards exist independent of the acts and are based on logic. Standards exist in and of themselves. Standards exist to prevent predictable consequences from occurring.

Humans on the other hand are emotional and subjective. They do not always follow logic. It should be no surprise that they don’t meet the standard or agree on what the standard is. But they will always argue that their belief is the standard even when it is clearly not.

 

[Taz]

So you claim there is a hard-wired moral standard for right and wrong but in this case there is no right OR wrong. Whatever your choice, you are neither right nor wrong. Seems like your fantasy of right and wrong just crashed into reality.

It is hard to practice the Golden Rule if others do not.

Im sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. It is morally wrong.

You're still not clear. Which was morally wrong:

1. killing someone who tries to kill you and violating the Golden Rule or
   
2. allowing someone who tries to kill you to succeed

Was the other choice morally right?

I don’t know how I can say it any more clearly than it is wrong to kill. It should be avoided at all costs. I can’t think of a higher standard than that. Can you? I will leave it to you to interpret it in a manner or way that satisfies your bias.

God killed nearly everyone on earth, so that was wrong?

Everyone dies.

You should stop reading the Bible literally.

So that's a yes. thanks.

 

[ding]

I don’t know how I can say it any more clearly than it is wrong to kill. It should be avoided at all costs. I can’t think of a higher standard than that. Can you? I will leave it to you to interpret it in a manner or way that satisfies your bias.

OK, here is my interpretation of this hard-wired moral code: killing is wrong unless it isn't, it should be avoided unless it shouldn't.

Or you could have written what I actually wrote.

 

[Taz]

So you are saying it is hard for you to not commit murder because there is a standard that we shouldn’t but other people do it any way?

Murder connotes a judgement so I've avoided using it. I'm not sure what your Mobius strip of a sentence is asking me. I would defend myself and my family, no question. Would I feel bad about it? Probably not. Would I have to rationalize that I've violated some hard-wired moral code? Not one bit.

I was just using your logic to show the ridiculousness of your position.

You have a really hard time of separating standards from acts. The acts do not negate the standard. Standards exist independent of the acts and are based on logic. Standards exist in and of themselves. Standards exist to prevent predictable consequences from occurring.

Humans on the other hand are emotional and subjective. They do not always follow logic. It should be no surprise that they don’t meet the standard or agree on what the standard is. But they will always argue that their belief is the standard even when it is clearly not.

So you get to choose what the common standard is?

 

[ding]

Im sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. It is morally wrong.

You're still not clear. Which was morally wrong:

1. killing someone who tries to kill you and violating the Golden Rule or
   
2. allowing someone who tries to kill you to succeed

Was the other choice morally right?

I don’t know how I can say it any more clearly than it is wrong to kill. It should be avoided at all costs. I can’t think of a higher standard than that. Can you? I will leave it to you to interpret it in a manner or way that satisfies your bias.

God killed nearly everyone on earth, so that was wrong?

Everyone dies.

You should stop reading the Bible literally.

So that's a yes. thanks.

No. That’s a that was a stupid question.

 

[ding]

So you are saying it is hard for you to not commit murder because there is a standard that we shouldn’t but other people do it any way?

Murder connotes a judgement so I've avoided using it. I'm not sure what your Mobius strip of a sentence is asking me. I would defend myself and my family, no question. Would I feel bad about it? Probably not. Would I have to rationalize that I've violated some hard-wired moral code? Not one bit.

I was just using your logic to show the ridiculousness of your position.

You have a really hard time of separating standards from acts. The acts do not negate the standard. Standards exist independent of the acts and are based on logic. Standards exist in and of themselves. Standards exist to prevent predictable consequences from occurring.

Humans on the other hand are emotional and subjective. They do not always follow logic. It should be no surprise that they don’t meet the standard or agree on what the standard is. But they will always argue that their belief is the standard even when it is clearly not.

So you get to choose what the common standard is?

Nope. Not me. The standard is.

 

[Taz]

You're still not clear. Which was morally wrong:

1. killing someone who tries to kill you and violating the Golden Rule or
   
2. allowing someone who tries to kill you to succeed

Was the other choice morally right?

I don’t know how I can say it any more clearly than it is wrong to kill. It should be avoided at all costs. I can’t think of a higher standard than that. Can you? I will leave it to you to interpret it in a manner or way that satisfies your bias.

God killed nearly everyone on earth, so that was wrong?

Everyone dies.

You should stop reading the Bible literally.

So that's a yes. thanks.

No. That’s a that was a stupid question.

You're still not clear. Which was morally wrong:

1. killing someone who tries to kill you and violating the Golden Rule or
   
2. allowing someone who tries to kill you to succeed

Was the other choice morally right?

I don’t know how I can say it any more clearly than it is wrong to kill. It should be avoided at all costs. I can’t think of a higher standard than that. Can you? I will leave it to you to interpret it in a manner or way that satisfies your bias.

God killed nearly everyone on earth, so that was wrong?

Everyone dies.

You should stop reading the Bible literally.

So that's a yes. thanks.

No. That’s a that was a stupid question.

No, YOU'RE STUPID!!

 

[ding]

^ dunning effect

 

[Taz]

So you are saying it is hard for you to not commit murder because there is a standard that we shouldn’t but other people do it any way?

Murder connotes a judgement so I've avoided using it. I'm not sure what your Mobius strip of a sentence is asking me. I would defend myself and my family, no question. Would I feel bad about it? Probably not. Would I have to rationalize that I've violated some hard-wired moral code? Not one bit.

I was just using your logic to show the ridiculousness of your position.

You have a really hard time of separating standards from acts. The acts do not negate the standard. Standards exist independent of the acts and are based on logic. Standards exist in and of themselves. Standards exist to prevent predictable consequences from occurring.

Humans on the other hand are emotional and subjective. They do not always follow logic. It should be no surprise that they don’t meet the standard or agree on what the standard is. But they will always argue that their belief is the standard even when it is clearly not.

So you get to choose what the common standard is?

Nope. Not me. The standard is.

Where is this standard?

 

[ding]

So you are saying it is hard for you to not commit murder because there is a standard that we shouldn’t but other people do it any way?

Murder connotes a judgement so I've avoided using it. I'm not sure what your Mobius strip of a sentence is asking me. I would defend myself and my family, no question. Would I feel bad about it? Probably not. Would I have to rationalize that I've violated some hard-wired moral code? Not one bit.

I was just using your logic to show the ridiculousness of your position.

You have a really hard time of separating standards from acts. The acts do not negate the standard. Standards exist independent of the acts and are based on logic. Standards exist in and of themselves. Standards exist to prevent predictable consequences from occurring.

Humans on the other hand are emotional and subjective. They do not always follow logic. It should be no surprise that they don’t meet the standard or agree on what the standard is. But they will always argue that their belief is the standard even when it is clearly not.

So you get to choose what the common standard is?

Nope. Not me. The standard is.

Where is this standard?

Natural Law.

It was people like you who need the letter of the law. Lawyers are your fault.

 

[ding]

So you are saying it is hard for you to not commit murder because there is a standard that we shouldn’t but other people do it any way?

Murder connotes a judgement so I've avoided using it. I'm not sure what your Mobius strip of a sentence is asking me. I would defend myself and my family, no question. Would I feel bad about it? Probably not. Would I have to rationalize that I've violated some hard-wired moral code? Not one bit.

I was just using your logic to show the ridiculousness of your position.

You have a really hard time of separating standards from acts. The acts do not negate the standard. Standards exist independent of the acts and are based on logic. Standards exist in and of themselves. Standards exist to prevent predictable consequences from occurring.

Humans on the other hand are emotional and subjective. They do not always follow logic. It should be no surprise that they don’t meet the standard or agree on what the standard is. But they will always argue that their belief is the standard even when it is clearly not.

So you get to choose what the common standard is?

Nope. Not me. The standard is.

Where is this standard?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[DOTR]

Christians are Trintarians by definition. Maybe the jews were this and maybe they were that, But all Christians worship the Trinity and Jewish forms of worship are not to be confused with Christianity.