|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,477 Year: 3,734/9,624 Month: 605/974 Week: 218/276 Day: 58/34 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are Fundamentalists Inherently Immoral | |||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
if man is basically good, why is there so much evil in the world? If God is basically good, why is there so much evil in the world?
If man has the capacity to reason morally, than how did the Holocaust happen? To fulfill scripture.
How come people like Stalin and Mao got the way they were? A combination between nihilistic philosophers like Marx and Nietzsche, and physical/mental abuse as children.
I heard on the news just last night that a 29 year old girl called the local police. She had been kidnapped in 1991 and had been kept in a cage as a sex slave ever since. Her kidnappers were a husband and wife team. If man can reason morally, how do people get like this? I don't call this an anomoly. Men do these things way too often. Why don't you ask the source who allegedly created man. Why don't you ask the manufacturer why the product is broken since the product didn't invent itself.
If there is no perfect and infinite being to define morality, then a finite and imperfect being must take his place. If there is an imperfect being defining morality, how can man reach true morality? Since you are a finite and imperfect being, why don't you tell us?
Answer me this question. What happens when two men reach two different moral conclusions using their own reasoning? You have a debate forum. "I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
In every case, the people who are punished are punished because they did not follow God's commands. You mean like the time when God commanded the Israelites to dash all the children upon the rocks? Wonder what kind of sins those babies affronted God with. "I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
In the case of the Midianites, the virgins were spared because it was safe to say that they had not participated in any sexual immorality. How exactly were the Israelites supposed to know who engaged in righteous sex (i.e. married) versus those who hadn't participated in any sexual immorality?
They were "taken" by the Isrealites, because they had nowhere else to go. They either left the girls out in the wilderness to die, or they took them back to their camps where the girls led the same life they would have had they not been attacked. Oh, please. Show me where in the story that they took them because they cared about the welfare of the virgins. They just massacred their families, but decided to let them live because they weren't sexually immoral, like, you know, King David, and saved them because they were virgins. Well, why then didn't they spare the young boys who were also virgins? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that's because they wanted to sexually plunder the young virgin girls. Since females had no rights, they couldn't object to not being married to whomever decided they wanted to marry them. Good thing those Israelites were such upstanding men who first got married before they raped their war prize. Wouldn't want to be, you know, sexually immoral.
You accuse the Isrealites of being immoral but you conveniently leave out the context of the times they were living in. Marriages back then were always arranged. Girls were forced to marry whomever their father told them to. This was true of the Isrealites, Midianites, and all the other "ites". It wasn't rape. Absolutely irrelevant if God's morals never change, which they saurely do, just read the entire bible, not just touchy-feely versus regurgitated in sermons all around the world. That means that even today if your father wants to marry off your sister to a convincted rapist, it won't technically be considered rape when she rebuffs his sexual advances. I realize that culture changes. Where you go wrong is trying to defend the actions of God who's moral's are supposed to be absolute. You are then bound by those principles. Any waivering or deviation from the standard refutes the entire thing.
The act of forcing a woman to have sex has always been considered sinful in the Bible. Marriage age has changed since then. But there is nowhere in the Bible where God said it was ok to force a woman to have sex with someone. Tsk, tsk.... So VERY wrong you are.
quote: Kidnapping women against their will is okay though. I'm assuming that you'll say they were kidnapped to save the young girls. Such gentlemen those Israelites were. Chivalry is not dead.
quote: Gosh, he's such a giving God, ya know?
quote: Pay attention guys, if you ever want to rape a chick, just be sure to pay her father off so that you can rape her legally whenever you want!
quote: Listen up ladies, if ever you're raped, be sure to scream "rape" at the top of your lungs, because if you don't you'll be stoned because you were raped. Hey, if you didn't scream rape then you must have enjoyed it. Sorry, sugar-tush, rules of the game.
quote: God here takes men's wives and has his neighbors rape them in front of their face (don't worry people, for some reason it's not sexually immoral, nor is it actually rape because Holyfire said so) Nathan absolves David of his whoredom, but insists that the bastard, rape baby die. A week later he gets his wish. Should I keep going, because there's plenty more where this came from. Still maintain that God's morality never changes or that God doesn't condone rape? Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given. "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
|
|||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Oh? So the infants and small children who were slaughtered had participated in sexual immorality? Who would'a thunk that? Those damn whorebabies. Will those little rascals ever learn? {Irrelevant sniping hidden - Behave yourself - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above. "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
|
|||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: That is an absolute statement. There is a difference between a moral absolute versus absolutes. Of course there are absolutes, but that's not what she said.
This implies that truth is absolute (I agree with this). However, if you adhere to the belief that truth is absolute, then you are forced to say that their is an absolute definition of right and wrong. Absolute truth implies absolute morality, therefore, your statment is a contradictory one. No, not necessarily. There may be an absolute truth to morality, but it is unprovable. It then becomes no different than subjective opinion. By your rationale we could then conclude that chocolate ice cream absolutely tastes better than vanilla ice cream.
Atheists make alot of absolute statements that they cannot defend because their own beliefs don't allow for the theory of absolutism. Agreed, but that's no different than theists. When push comes to shove and when backed in to a philosophical corner, you'll suddenly see those hardcore absolutists shifting goalposts.
Let me ask all of you this question. Do you agree with me that veiwing child pornography is absolutely evil and wrong? I believe it is wrong based on my morality and based on societies utilitarian morality. If it is absolutely wrong, I would have no way of knowing, and neither would you. "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
|
|||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
"Truth" is not absolute. Truth is subjective - the teachings of Jesus, for example, can have great "truth" regardless of whether the man Jesus ever existed or ever said the things recorded in the Bible. Even fairy tales contain "truth," even though they're completely made-up. Fact is absolute. There is a difference; a rather large one, at that. While you and I seem to be in agreement that morals are not absolute, or if they are they have yet to be verified empirically, but I'm not seeing a difference between fact and truth, let alone a large one. Obviously there are some things that are absolute, "truth" being one of them.
"Truth" is not absolute. Is this a true (factual) statement? It's a self-defeating principle not to recognize absolute truths when trying to determine whether or not there are moral absolutes. "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
|
|||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
He killed prostitutes --- you know, like the Bible says to Well, that's not entirely true. "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone... Woman, has no one come to condemn you?.. Neither will I condemn you. Go and sin no more" -Jesus Christ But it is a contradiction from the Law of Moses. Wait a minute, didn't he kill an Egyptian and covered up the body in the sand? "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
|
|||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Where in the Book of Exodus (NIV) does the following passage appear: "And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenantthe Ten Commandments." a) chapter 20b) chapter 34 c) both of the above d) somewhere else I'll take "Bible Contradictions" for 400, Alex. C) both of the above Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given. "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024