30 Oct 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerHomosexuals should be stoned to death providing
Jesus said let him who has no sin throw the first stone when they brought him the woman caught in adultery I would guess the same applies to homosexuality.
the first stone is thrown by a man with "no sin"?
Is that what you mean?
30 Oct 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou have sidestepped my question yet again. I am not talking about the death penalty. I'm asking you how your moral stances on adultery and homosexual sex would affect the laws you would enact and impose on society.
Jesus said let him who has no sin throw the first stone when they brought him the woman caught in adultery I would guess the same applies to homosexuality.
30 Oct 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerDo you think your belief that getting angry with someone and murdering 6,000,000 people are "equally evil", and that they ultimately deserve exactly the same punishment, would qualify you or disqualify you to enact morality-related laws and impose them on society?
Equally evil as in 'sinful'. As far as I can tell any sin whether big or small can keep you out of Heaven if you haven't been cleansed of it. I was speaking in Biblical terms. Jesus said if you get angry with your brother you are in danger of judgement. If you call him a fool you are in danger of the fires of hell. If you can prove to me out of the Bible that certain sins will be overlooked feel free to do so.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59All have sinned so no one has the right to throw any stones.
Homosexuals should be stoned to death providing
the first stone is thrown by a man with "no sin"?
Is that what you mean?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfWhich society are you talking about? A dictatorship or a democracy? Who said I would enact or impose laws on society?
You have sidestepped my question yet again. I am not talking about the death penalty. I'm asking you how your moral stances on adultery and homosexual sex would affect the laws you would enact and impose on society.
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerAre you saying the punishment is just but there isn't anyone who can carry it out?
All have sinned so no one has the right to throw any stones.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Not at all. God will judge righteously. Who are we to judge?
Are you saying the punishment is just but there isn't anyone who can carry it out?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou seem very evasive. You asked me questions of this nature and I answed them. And when similar questions are put to you, you become sort of conversationally furtive.
Which society are you talking about? A dictatorship or a democracy? Who said I would enact or impose laws on society?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerSo your moral standards guide you and affect how you perceive others. And basically, that's all. They are a personal thing. No imposing, no enacting, no embodiment in laws that affect others. And, at the same time, my moral standards guide me and affect how I perceive others, in the same way.
I would not impose my moral stances upon anyone, would you?
So why are you going on and on and on all the time about how you insist your morals are "objective"?
What difference does it make to anybody else that you attach the label "objective" to your personal preferences and standards?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @fmfI asked you questions based upon what you had said, (i.e talking people out of having abortions). Did I ever say I feel the urge to impose my morals upon other people?
You seem very evasive. You asked me questions of this nature and I answed them. And when similar questions are put to you, you become sort of conversationally furtive.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @fmfI am surprised that after all this time you still don't get it. If God does exist and the Bible is His revelation to mankind, it means that the Bible is the objective standard for right and wrong. That means if the Bible clearly says that something is wrong it is still wrong regardless of whether or not people have been conditioned by society to believe that it isn't wrong.
So your moral standards guide you and affect how you perceive others. And basically, that's all. They are a personal thing. No imposing, no enacting, no embodiment in laws that affect others. And, at the same time, my moral standards guide me and affect how I perceive others, in the same way.
So why are you going on and on and on all the time about how you ...[text shortened]... o anybody else that you attach the label "objective" to your personal preferences and standards?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerDidn't you agree with the imposition of same morally-based laws as me [pertaining to the behaviours I listed]?
Did I ever say I feel the urge to impose my morals upon other people?
What would your supposedly "objective" morals have empowered you to actually do about the Nazis?
Simply condemn their actions while wittering on childishly about how the condemnation from others, who don't happen to share your superstitions, was "incoherent"?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerThis regurgitation of stuff you have claimed about your personal opinions umpteen times before has simply sidestepped the content of the post you were ostensibly replying to.
I am surprised that after all this time you still don't get it. If God does exist and the Bible is His revelation to mankind, it means that the Bible is the objective standard for right and wrong. That means if the Bible clearly says that something is wrong it is still wrong regardless of whether or not people have been conditioned by society to believe that it isn't wrong.