# hypothetical II (Just fro you String)



## hunter rich (Mar 14, 2012)

Here is a hypothetical...
I am a christian, I go to church on Sunday and all the other church going holidays, I tythe a minimum of 10%, I read the bible every night, I do volunteer work with the church when ever possible, I share the word when ever i can. I beat my children and wife daily. After i do it I ask god for forgiveness and help in changing my ways. 

Therefore its all good!

P.S.
Im thinking of killing them because that too is forgivable...


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 14, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> Here is a hypothetical...
> I am a christian, I go to church on Sunday and all the other church going holidays, I tythe a minimum of 10%, I read the bible every night, I do volunteer work with the church when ever possible, I share the word when ever i can. I beat my children and wife daily. After i do it I ask god for forgiveness and help in changing my ways.
> 
> Therefore its all good!
> ...



I like the cut of your jib, but shouldn't this be in the Christian/Judaism section?


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I like the cut of your jib, but shouldn't this be in the Christian/Judaism section?



I just cant get it right today!!  

First Stringmusic accuses me of thread hijacking and now when i try to appease him i apparently do it in the wrong place!


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 14, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> I am a christian ...



No, you're not.

_“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ _


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 14, 2012)

or am I?

As others have said "I would like to do this without bible qoutes"

BUT...



1 John 1:9 
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness

Isaiah 55:7 
Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon

Mark 11:25  And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses

James 5:15  And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven

More?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 14, 2012)

You can't say this:



hunter rich said:


> I am a christian ... I read the bible every night ...



... and then say this:



hunter rich said:


> "I would like to do this without bible qoutes"



Make up your mind.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 14, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> 1 John 1:9
> If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness
> 
> Isaiah 55:7
> ...




Repeat the same hypothetical to John, Isaiah, Mark and James and they'd come back at you with this:

_“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.  Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’  Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ _


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> You can't say this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The implication being that your not a christian if you dont prefer a discussion to use bible quotes?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> The implication being that your not a christian if you dont prefer a discussion to use bible quotes?



You can't set up a scenario with a "Christian" who "reads the Bible" and then say that you don't want that same Bible to be used as the standard of conduct.

It's like setting up a scenario with an American citizen on trial and saying, "Please do not respond with quotes from the U.S Constitution, Federal and state laws, or prior court decisions.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2012)

Centerpin, it is HYPOTHETICAL. Just like String's made up thread. Hunter Rich has done a great job of showing us how when the shoe is on the other foot the believers will jump all over it yet say nothing when one of their own makes an absurd hypothetical post.
In this scenario Hunter Rich is JUST as much of a Christian as String's made up Atheist is an Atheist.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> Here is a hypothetical...
> I am a christian, I go to church on Sunday and all the other church going holidays, I tythe a minimum of 10%, I read the bible every night, I do volunteer work with the church when ever possible, I share the word when ever i can. I beat my children and wife daily. After i do it I ask god for forgiveness and help in changing my ways.
> 
> Therefore its all good!
> ...



Hypothetically speaking, for all we know your God might command you to beat and kill them at some point so you are probably carrying out his Will. Carry on.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 14, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Centerpin, it is HYPOTHETICAL.



No, it's RIDICULOUS.  Maybe the other thread was, too.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> No, it's RIDICULOUS.  Maybe the other thread was, too.



I agree and I think Hunter Rich HAD to post this one to open some eyes about the other one! Kudos to HR!
Most of these "hypothetical" questions are a smoke screen for the OP to convey their thoughts without seeming like that is what they are doing. Because it is "hypothetical" an incredible amount of personal assumptions instead of facts can be included without repercussion. Fortunately it doesn't work.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 14, 2012)

bullethead said:


> when the shoe is on the other foot the believers will jump all over it yet say nothing when one of their own makes an absurd hypothetical post.



You are wrong on both counts.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 14, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I agree and I think Hunter Rich HAD to post this one to open some eyes about the other one! Kudos to HR!
> Most of these "hypothetical" questions are a smoke screen for the OP to convey their thoughts without seeming like that is what they are doing. Because it is "hypothetical" an incredible amount of personal assumptions instead of facts can be included without repercussion. Fortunately it doesn't work.




I may start a hypothetical thread about a fiddler crab who runs for president.  The only problem is ... he's a Mormon!


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 14, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> You can't set up a scenario with a "Christian" who "reads the Bible" and then say that you don't want that same Bible to be used as the standard of conduct.It's like setting up a scenario with an American citizen on trial and saying, "Please do not respond with quotes from the U.S Constitution, Federal and state laws, or prior court decisions.



Gotta agree there.  It was used in the introduction, so it is part of the debate


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I may start a hypothetical thread about a fiddler crab who runs for president.  The only problem is ... he's a Mormon!



L-O-L! THAT would be a great one!!! Good Stuff CPF!!!!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 14, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Centerpin, it is HYPOTHETICAL. Just like String's made up thread. Hunter Rich has done a great job of showing us how when the shoe is on the other foot the believers will jump all over it yet say nothing when one of their own makes an absurd hypothetical post.
> In this scenario Hunter Rich is JUST as much of a Christian as String's made up Atheist is an Atheist.



BH - Hypothetical or not, if you claim to be an athiest, the only rule is that you don't believe in God. So there are no rules to go by (except you don't believe in God). Then you get to define or interpret your morality as you see fit.

If you claim to be a Christian, there are rules defined by God. So if you are a fig tree, and you bear apples, you have not followed the rules (of being a Christian).

This is a biblical reference, and a scientific fact.

Fig trees do not bear apples.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 14, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> Here is a hypothetical...
> I am a christian, I go to church on Sunday and all the other church going holidays, I tythe a minimum of 10%, I read the bible every night, I do volunteer work with the church when ever possible, I share the word when ever i can. I beat my children and wife daily. After i do it I ask god for forgiveness and help in changing my ways.
> 
> Therefore its all good!
> ...



You have left out the one thing that really makes a person a Christian. So, I would venture a guess that (hypothetically) you are not a Christian.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> BH - Hypothetical or not, if you claim to be an athiest, the only rule is that you don't believe in God. So there are no rules to go by (except you don't believe in God). Then you get to define or interpret your morality as you see fit.
> 
> If you claim to be a Christian, there are rules defined by God. So if you are a fig tree, and you bear apples, you have not followed the rules (of being a Christian).
> 
> ...



All I gotsta say about that then, is there are not many actual Christians despite their claims.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 14, 2012)

bullethead said:


> All I gotsta say about that then, is there are not many actual Christians despite their claims.



You might be right. It is not my place to judge.


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 15, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> You can't say this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When yo take a quote apart things happen...I said "As others have said "I would like to do this without bible quotes"

BUT..."

In other words I will make an exception  that is why the BUT...


----------



## fish hawk (Mar 15, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> Here is a hypothetical...
> I am a christian, I go to church on Sunday and all the other church going holidays, I tythe a minimum of 10%, I read the bible every night, I do volunteer work with the church when ever possible, I share the word when ever i can. I beat my children and wife daily. After i do it I ask god for forgiveness and help in changing my ways.
> 
> Therefore its all good!
> ...



You can beat your wife and kids all you want and even kill them but when you wind up in the pokie you can then pray that you dont wind up as the jail house ho or worse..... hypothetical scenario of coarse.....How many Christians out there on woodies have been told by God to beat there wife and kids,then kill them?????


----------



## fish hawk (Mar 15, 2012)

hypothetical scenario # 2 about what happens to child beaters in prison.....They take the red m@m's and rub them on your lips,thats the lipstick .then they take the blues and rub them above your eyes,thats your eye liner. then they take the greens and rub them on your cheeks.Then they take the yellow bread ties and twist them up in your hair....all purty now!!!


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> BH - Hypothetical or not, if you claim to be an athiest, the only rule is that you don't believe in God. So there are no rules to go by (except you don't believe in God). Then you get to define or interpret your morality as you see fit.
> 
> If you claim to be a Christian, there are rules defined by God. So if you are a fig tree, and you bear apples, you have not followed the rules (of being a Christian).
> 
> ...



I have been beating this point in every direction I know how for the last two days, even to the point of making hypothetical threads. You just said it better in this single post than me. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is a point in which an Atheist cannot refute, and most wont even try.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> Here is a hypothetical...
> I am a christian, I go to church on Sunday and all the other church going holidays, I tythe a minimum of 10%, I read the bible every night, I do volunteer work with the church when ever possible, I share the word when ever i can. I beat my children and wife daily. After i do it I ask god for forgiveness and help in changing my ways.
> 
> Therefore its all good!
> ...



I think your wife and children should move away from you for a long while, until God can work this problem out for you. It is wrong to breach the sacreness of life given to your family and humanity by beating them and or killing them.

A Christian that does things that are wrong just because they can or are forgiven is not following the path set forth by Christ. A relationship with Christ comes with it a want to do that which is good and glorifying to God. You are in no way do that, I'll be praying for your situation along with everyone involved.

It is not "all good"



See how easy that was! Now you can go to my thread and answer my question.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> hypothetical scenario # 2 about what happens to child beaters in prison.....They take the red m@m's and rub them on your lips,thats the lipstick .then they take the blues and rub them above your eyes,thats your eye liner. then they take the greens and rub them on your cheeks.Then they take the yellow bread ties and twist them up in your hair....all purty now!!!



Sounds like you had a lot of M&M's in prison.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I have been beating this point in every direction I know how for the last two days, even to the point of making hypothetical threads. You just said it better in this single post than me. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> It is a point in which an Atheist cannot refute, and most wont even try.



I would love either you or Ted to actually back up what you guys are saying with facts. Other than "Atheists don't believe in God", which is the definition of an Atheist... I have not seen one instance where being an Atheist exempts a person from having any other rules.
At the very first and foremost beginning of your argument you IMPLY that a God exists to give everyone else these "rules". In two years on here I have seen where anyone can back up the existence of a God, let alone show where morals and rules have been generated by THEIR God! Then you imply(with not a shred of proof) that every person on the planet that does believe in a God are a bunch of free wheeling, do-as-they-may, nitwits running around with no morals or sense of right and wrong. And to top it off String makes up hypothetical situations where Atheism can lead without ever admitting that EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the planet, NO MATTER of their beliefs, could be in the exact situation. Where do people that believe in another deity but do not believe in YOUR God get their "rules"?? Oh let me guess.....THEY HAVE IT WRONG WITH THEIR BELIEFS as YOUR God made them, they just don't know it. No matter how you guys try to make a case for YOUR God providing the world and specifically HIS believers as having some sort extra special morals and rules I have not seen one example of that sets someone who believes in a God differs from someone that does not believe in a God in every day life and scenarios. You cannot look at someone and say "believer" or atheist" based on their actions. There is not a shred of difference in love, compassion, anger, happiness, sorrow, or anything we people go through on a daily basis. An atheist and believer will often make the same choice in a situation with the only difference being the atheist does it because that is what they feel is right for the situation and the believer does it for the SAME EXACT reasons, only when pressed will say a God helped them make that decision. Big stinkin whoop!


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I would love either you or Ted to actually back up what you guys are saying with facts. Other than "Atheists don't believe in God", which is the definition of an Atheist... I have not seen one instance where being an Atheist exempts a person from having any other rules.


Where do Atheists get these "rules"? And, what if, a fellow Atheist decided he doesn't like these rules and decides he will make his own rules to follow?



> Then you imply(with not a shred of proof) that every person on the planet that does believe in a God are a bunch of free wheeling, do-as-they-may, nitwits running around with no morals or sense of right and wrong.



Please, please bullet, show me one post where I have made this claim.

Was it here, is this where you get this idea? The part in all caps?


stringmusic said:


> Let's go with a hypothetical situation.
> 
> And before anybody decideds to start ranting and thinking for me and putting words in my mouth, *THIS IS NOT WHAT I THINK ABOUT ALL ATHEISTS. I BELIEVE ATHEISTS HAVE MORALS.*
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Where do Atheists get these "rules"? And, what if, a fellow Atheist decided he doesn't like these rules and decides he will make his own rules to follow?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Atheists get their rules by following their upbringing and conforming to the society they live in. It is millions of years in the making and the reason why there is a difference in worldwide views and not ONE UNIVERSAL kum-by-ya  set of rules.

You type that in CAPS but seem to think Atheists have no rules. Where do the Atheits that you belive have morals get them from?How can they be a productive and influential part of society with no rules. How do they have morals with no God? Or are you trying to prove the existence of YOUR God by using rules and morals as your proof?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Atheists get their rules by following their upbringing and conforming to the society they live in.


Now reduce that back to the beginning of time. At what point did matter, that somehow formed a human, with no emotion or conscience gain empathy?




> You type that in CAPS but seem to think Atheists have no rules. Where do the Atheits that you belive have morals get them from?How can they be a productive and influential part of society with no rules. How do they have morals with no God? Or are you trying to prove the existence of YOUR God by using rules and morals as your proof?



I never said atheists have no rules, just no loyalty to any set of rules, like swaying in the wind.

The existence of instrinsic morals is not proof for the God of the bible, it is evidence that there is a God. After that is established and two people can agree, the next step is which God.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 15, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> When yo take a quote apart things happen...I said "As others have said "I would like to do this without bible quotes"
> 
> BUT..."
> 
> In other words I will make an exception  that is why the BUT...



I took your "but" into account and addressed your exception in post #7.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 15, 2012)

My goodness string your are incredulous. You keep bringing this moral argument, but you start from a position that is flat out wrong.  

You keep insisting that morals are intrinsic, and have beem with us from the begining. But they are not!!!! They are completely arbitrary, a construct of man!  Even christians have not shown a moral consistency throughout history.  If they were so intrinsic there would be very little discrepency through all cultures, let alone similar ones.  But there is no such deal.  Just Look at the discrepencies between christian denominations, and the way they have changed over the course of just 100 years. 

String if your thinking of morality is typical of christians, I for one am glad not to call myself one.  I will, with all my powers of pursuasion, try and make sure I turn as many people away from christianity as possible.  My children will be educated as to the poisonous nature of such thinking and will be instructed to work against such distasteful, archaic, and intolerant mindsets. 

Your moral superiority is delusional.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Now reduce that back to the beginning of time. At what point did matter, that somehow formed a human, with no emotion or conscience gain empathy?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



String, go back to the beginning of man and show me where ANY God did anything.


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> See how easy that was! Now you can go to my thread and answer my question.


 
Actually, there was no question to answer...I just put out a hypothetical statement.


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 15, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Repeat the same hypothetical to John, Isaiah, Mark and James and they'd come back at you with this:
> 
> _“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.  Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’  Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ _



And you know this to be fact ? How? Are they hypocrites?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 15, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> And you know this to be fact ? How? Are they hypocrites?



No, you're just isolating scriptures and ignoring not only the immediate context but also the overall theme of repentance that runs throughout the Bible.

John the Baptist preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”  Jesus, in the first words of His public ministry, said, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

In your hypothetical Christian, there is obviously no repentance, only delusion.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> Actually, there was no question to answer...I just put out a hypothetical statement.



Then I didn't answer your question. Will you answer mine?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> String if your thinking of morality is typical of christians, I for one am glad not to call myself one.  I will, with all my powers of pursuasion, try and make sure I turn as many people away from christianity as possible.  My children will be educated as to the poisonous nature of such thinking and will be instructed to work against such distasteful, archaic, and intolerant mindsets.


What, that I believe morals are objective and something everyone should adhere to? That I believe raping a child is wrong in any time or place since man has been on the face of the earth. Call it "poisonous nature" if you want to, seems something you would want your kids to know, but I have my own child to raise., and he will learn things like rape and murder are wrong, always, not just when they are relative to the situation.



> Your moral superiority is delusional.



Thanks Bishop, that means a lot coming from you.

And BTW, I have no moral superiority.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> String, go back to the beginning of man and show me where ANY God did anything.



Are you going to answer the question?




stringmusic said:


> Now reduce that back to the beginning of time. At what point did matter, that somehow formed a human, with no emotion or conscience gain empathy?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> My goodness string your are incredulous. You keep bringing this moral argument, but you start from a position that is flat out wrong.
> 
> You keep insisting that morals are intrinsic, and have beem with us from the begining. But they are not!!!! *They are completely arbitrary*, a construct of man!  Even christians have not shown a moral consistency throughout history.  If they were so intrinsic there would be very little discrepency through all cultures, let alone similar ones.  But there is no such deal.  Just Look at the discrepencies between christian denominations, and the way they have changed over the course of just 100 years.
> 
> ...



So there is a time and place for everything?


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> So there is a time and place for everything?



Name a universal moral value.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What, that I believe morals are objective and something everyone should adhere to? That I believe raping a child is wrong in any time or place since man has been on the face of the earth. Call it "poisonous nature" if you want to, seems something you would want your kids to know, but I have my own child to raise., and he will learn things like rape and murder are wrong, always, not just when they are relative to the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You must not understand what I am talking about if that is all you got.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Name a universal moral value.



Not raping a small child.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> You must not understand what I am talking about if that is all you got.



No, I must not, or this is the best you've got, the "well, well, you just don't understand" argument.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Not raping a small child.



Define Small, child, and raping, so the terms may be universally understood, and applicable.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No, I must not, or this is the best you've got, the "well, well, you just don't understand" argument.



No. It's I give up. You are obviously incapable of understanding.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Define Small, child, and raping, so the terms may be universally understood, and applicable.



How about we go with raping anybody, that will be more universal. 
We can use this definition of rape.

rape  - Bing Dictionary
rape [ rayp ]   1.forcing of somebody into sex: the crime of using force somebody to have sexual intercourse with somebody


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Are you going to answer the question?





stringmusic said:


> Now reduce that back to the beginning of time. At what point did matter, that somehow formed a human, with no emotion or conscience gain empathy?



String I seriously and honestly do not know. Therefore I do not and will not reduce it all to one possible scenario. I do not and will not make up some poor excuse that a supernatural invisible being is the only possible answer. The odds of it happening the way I THINK it might have happened are one to billionth power plus, but no one posts the odds of a God creating it. I'll give you benefit of doubt and we'll call the odds even.
You ask for some other proof as if without that proof proves your wishful guess is somehow right. UNTIL you somehow prove what you believe and say is true beyond any reasonable doubt then you are in the same boat as the people you argue against.

Now please address my statement to you.

Originally Posted by bullethead View Post:
String, go back to the beginning of man and show me where ANY God did anything.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How about we go with raping anybody, that will be more universal.
> We can use this definition of rape.
> 
> rape  - Bing Dictionary
> rape [ rayp ]   1.forcing of somebody into sex: the crime of using force somebody to have sexual intercourse with somebody



What about small and child?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> String I seriously and honestly do not know. Therefore I do not and will not reduce it all to one possible scenario. I do not and will not make up some poor excuse that a supernatural invisible being is the only possible answer. The odds of it happening the way I THINK it might have happened are one to billionth power plus, but no one posts the odds of a God creating it. I'll give you benefit of doubt and we'll call the odds even.
> You ask for some other proof as if without that proof proves your wishful guess is somehow right. UNTIL you somehow prove what you believe and say is true beyond any reasonable doubt then you are in the same boat as the people you argue against.




I will say this, if there is no what, then the next logical step is who.



> Now please address my statement to you.
> 
> Originally Posted by bullethead View Post:
> String, go back to the beginning of man and show me where ANY God did anything.



I can't, it is the logical position I end up at when I try to think of how morals could have arised out of matter that has no feelings, or emotions or empathy or anything. I have to assert that something with inteligence created those things and in turn created morals.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> What about small and child?



I said we could use anyone. But since you insist, small being less than 2 ft tall and weighing less than 25 pounds. child you can define as being less than 5 years old.

Now Bishop, give me an acceptable scenario than it would be morally right to rape a child.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I will say this, if there is no what, then the next logical step is who.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't, it is the logical position I end up at when I try to think of how morals could have arised out of matter that has no feelings, or emotions or empathy or anything. I have to assert that something with inteligence created those things and in turn created morals.



Then I hope you understand why I end up at the position I have.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I said we could use anyone. But since you insist, small being less than 2 ft tall and weighing less than 25 pounds. child you can define as being less than 5 years old.



Thank you for being so easy.  I asked for a universal moral value.  What you gave me was an individual moral value, thus arbitrary.  

You said



> Not raping a small child.



There are three terms in this phrase that a subject for individual interpretation.  

1. Rape
2. Small 
3. child

Now you gave websters definition for rape:



> rape  - Bing Dictionary
> rape [ rayp ] 1.forcing of somebody into sex: the crime of using force somebody to have sexual intercourse with somebody



Which is good for our definition but wholely inadequate in a universal moral principal.  You see string, I know you find this shocking, but there are many cultures that actually disagree on what constitutes rape. Just as many will disagree on what constitutes small and child.  You cannot construct a moral absolute in that manner.  



> Now Bishop, give me an acceptable scenario than it would be morally right to rape a child.



I do not wish to play the hypothetical scenerios game.  I myself find the idea of hurting children revolting.  I also understand that there is no moral constant in the world, and therefore not a gift from an all powerfull being.  Morals are a construct of man, in the time and manner in which they live.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 15, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> My goodness string your are incredulous. You keep bringing this moral argument, but you start from a position that is flat out wrong.
> 
> You keep insisting that morals are intrinsic, and have beem with us from the begining. But they are not!!!! They are completely arbitrary, a construct of man!  Even christians have not shown a moral consistency throughout history.  If they were so intrinsic there would be very little discrepency through all cultures, let alone similar ones.  But there is no such deal.  Just Look at the discrepencies between christian denominations, and the way they have changed over the course of just 100 years.
> 
> ...



Bishop, your morals (as an atheist) are created by situations, cultures, popular and personal opinion. The morals of a Christian are created by God. There is a fundamental disagreement between us on what morals even are. Those without Christ see them as really good suggestions about how to behave that are defined by situations and opinions. Those with Christ see them as absolute truth.

I am not saying who is wrong or right, I am just trying to point out the fundamental difference in the way that morals are percieved.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I would love either you or Ted to actually back up what you guys are saying with facts. Other than "Atheists don't believe in God", which is the definition of an Atheist... I have not seen one instance where being an Atheist exempts a person from having any other rules.
> At the very first and foremost beginning of your argument you IMPLY that a God exists to give everyone else these "rules". In two years on here I have seen where anyone can back up the existence of a God, let alone show where morals and rules have been generated by THEIR God! Then you imply(with not a shred of proof) that every person on the planet that does believe in a God are a bunch of free wheeling, do-as-they-may, nitwits running around with no morals or sense of right and wrong. And to top it off String makes up hypothetical situations where Atheism can lead without ever admitting that EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the planet, NO MATTER of their beliefs, could be in the exact situation. Where do people that believe in another deity but do not believe in YOUR God get their "rules"?? Oh let me guess.....THEY HAVE IT WRONG WITH THEIR BELIEFS as YOUR God made them, they just don't know it. No matter how you guys try to make a case for YOUR God providing the world and specifically HIS believers as having some sort extra special morals and rules I have not seen one example of that sets someone who believes in a God differs from someone that does not believe in a God in every day life and scenarios. You cannot look at someone and say "believer" or atheist" based on their actions. There is not a shred of difference in love, compassion, anger, happiness, sorrow, or anything we people go through on a daily basis. An atheist and believer will often make the same choice in a situation with the only difference being the atheist does it because that is what they feel is right for the situation and the believer does it for the SAME EXACT reasons, only when pressed will say a God helped them make that decision. Big stinkin whoop!



BH - after all this time, and all these posts, I thought you might understand how we fell just a little bit by now. You just seem angry now.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> BH - after all this time, and all these posts, I thought you might understand how we fell just a little bit by now. You just seem angry now.



Not at all Angry. I understand how you feel. I understand beliefs. I cannot and do not take the "Clearly it is God...." deductive reasoning when not only all other avenues have not been explored but no other avenues are even looked for or considered.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Bishop, your morals (as an atheist) are created by situations, cultures, popular and personal opinion. The morals of a Christian are created by God. There is a fundamental disagreement between us on what morals even are. Those without Christ see them as really good suggestions about how to behave that are defined by situations and opinions. Those with Christ see them as absolute truth.
> 
> I am not saying who is wrong or right, I am just trying to point out the fundamental difference in the way that morals are percieved.



Atheists do not go around with the "WWAD?" attitude.(What Would Atheists Do?) 
The Morals of a Christian(or anyone) simply CANNOT be measured to a universal standard. None exist. Using your Christian morals as an example what are those morals created by the Christian God? How many people follow them faithfully? Is anyone that does not follow those morals each and every time worthy of being called a Christian? Those Christian Morals , like the Christian beliefs, vary widely among the Christians. Yeah there is the Bible but Christians cannot and do not individually...let alone universally...agree on the contents, what they mean, how they should be interpreted,  and on and on and on. How can you say that calling oneself a Christian automatically instills those morals in that person? Bottom line is that if you use the same morals that the God of the Bible commands and the morals that the God of the Bible displays in his actions in the Bible and somehow think those are the standards that separate Christians from everyone else then by all means KEEP them! I'd give them away too if I were a God and work on some new ones with higher standards.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Not at all Angry. I understand how you feel. I understand beliefs. I cannot and do not take the "Clearly it is God...." deductive reasoning when not only all other avenues have not been explored but no other avenues are even looked for or considered.



Deductive reasoning does not apply to Christianity.

Christianity is completely illogical. That is the nature of Grace.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Atheists do not go around with the "WWAD?" attitude.(What Would Atheists Do?)
> The Morals of a Christian(or anyone) simply CANNOT be measured to a universal standard. None exist. Using your Christian morals as an example what are those morals created by the Christian God? How many people follow them faithfully? Is anyone that does not follow those morals each and every time worthy of being called a Christian? Those Christian Morals , like the Christian beliefs, vary widely among the Christians. Yeah there is the Bible but Christians cannot and do not individually...let alone universally...agree on the contents, what they mean, how they should be interpreted,  and on and on and on. How can you say that calling oneself a Christian automatically instills those morals in that person? Bottom line is that if you use the same morals that the God of the Bible commands and the morals that the God of the Bible displays in his actions in the Bible and somehow think those are the standards that separate Christians from everyone else then by all means KEEP them! I'd give them away too if I were a God and work on some new ones with higher standards.



This is the fundamental disagreement we have. Nothing else can be fruitfully discussed as long as we disagree on this point. The rest of your post consists of questions that cannot be answered due to our fundamental disagreement about the words in red.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Deductive reasoning does not apply to Christianity.


Enough Christians use deductive reasoning so I figured it was applicable.
EX: I don't know how we got here, you can't prove how we got here, therefore God is the reason we are here.
It is done constantly on here.



ted_BSR said:


> Christianity is completely illogical. That is the nature of Grace.



That I can agree with.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> This is the fundamental disagreement we have. Nothing else can be fruitfully discussed as long as we disagree on this point. The rest of your post consists of questions that cannot be answered due to our fundamental disagreement about the words in red.



All you have to do is show me those morals and how/when God gave them to us. What is the standard?
We can certainly make headway and continue with just a few simple answers. If you have the answers I am willing to hear them but please don't use  "fundamental disagreement" as a way to avoid conversation because you don't have the answers.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Enough Christians use deductive reasoning so I figured it was applicable.
> EX: I don't know how we got here, you can't prove how we got here, therefore God is the reason we are here.
> It is done constantly on here.
> 
> ...



And you would agree wholeheartedly if you knew Grace.

It seems like we are arguing on several different threads at once. Why don't we get a beer and behave like humans?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> And you would agree wholeheartedly if you knew Grace.
> 
> It seems like we are arguing on several different threads at once. Why don't we get a beer and behave like humans?



I'd hate to see what happens if we behaved like humans but I'll certainly buy you a virtual beer!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I'd hate to see what happens if we behaved like humans but I'll certainly buy you a virtual beer!



I'll meet you in Virginia or something! Cheers!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I'll meet you in Virginia or something! Cheers!



You make sure to let me know if you ever come up to see your parents. I'll buy you a case of good 'ol Schuylkill County's own Yuengling Lager....or whatever your preference happens to be!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You make sure to let me know if you ever come up to see your parents. I'll buy you a case of good 'ol Schuylkill County's own Yuengling Lager....or whatever your preference happens to be!



Do they sell Wild Turkey up there? All my people in PA have passed on or moved, but you never know when I'll make it up that way again. If it happens, I WILL shoot you a PM.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2012)

Sorry to hear about that. But yes, if your in the area...Cabelas or something...be sure to send a PM. I'd gladly honor such a worthy debater with a fifth of WT!


----------



## fish hawk (Mar 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Sounds like you had a lot of M&M's in prison.



Not many compared to the packs of grape jelly that you must have went thru!!!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Not many compared to the packs of grape jelly that you must have went thru!!!



Just for my PBJ sandwiches. I am not as well schooled with prison terms and ways as you seem to be. I'll chalk it up to me never setting foot in one. A lot of people "find" Jesus while incarcerated. Hopefully you are just locked up part time as a Corrections Officer, it could explain your in depth knowledge of the practices that go on there. Otherwise......


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Thank you for being so easy.  I asked for a universal moral value.  What you gave me was an individual moral value, thus arbitrary.
> 
> You said
> 
> ...


So now definitions to all words are arbitrary as well?

How about we go with a child that is 1 day old. Do you think there is anyone on the planet that might not agree that the definition of a human that is one day old is not a child.

I could also explain rape in another way that could be completely universal to you and everyone esle but I feel that it is inappropriate for this forum.




> I do not wish to play the hypothetical scenerios game.  I myself find the idea of hurting children revolting.  I also understand that there is no moral constant in the world, and therefore not a gift from an all powerfull being.  Morals are a construct of man, in the time and manner in which they live.


Would you like me to give you a link of a real life scenerio where a child has been raped? It would not longer be hypothetical.

I thought that the question I asked might be taken as a given, since we both know it happens everyday. It seems as if you are avoiding the question of "Is it ok to rape a child?" by harping over the definitions of some of the words, which are a given.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 16, 2012)

You just dont get it do you string.  I'm not here to justify any scenerio you put forth.  I'm just pointing to the fact that your universal morals are not so universal.  You are so entrapped in your mentality that you are unable to comprehend anything outside of your little world.  I can try and explain it 1000 diferent ways but until you get the answer you want to hear, right or wrong, you will continue to dismiss everything else.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> You just dont get it do you string.  I'm not here to justify any scenerio you put forth.  I'm just pointing to the fact that your universal morals are not so universal.  You are so entrapped in your mentality that you are unable to comprehend anything outside of your little world.  I can try and explain it 1000 diferent ways but until you get the answer you want to hear, right or wrong, you will continue to dismiss everything else.





You won't, or should I say can't, answer a question. I understand completely what you are trying to say, and in turn, I am asking you a question. Why can't you just answer the question?

Here is my logic. Bishop is sitting on the couch and watching the news, a story comes on about a child being raped by his or her uncle. The uncle forced the child into a closet and sexually molested the child. Bishop thinks to himself "that is not right" which implies that there is a wrong, and that wrong is that the uncle should not have raped that child.

Bishop then says that morals are relative. If morals are relative then there is a time and a place that it is ok to rape a child, with whatever definition you can possible think of for rape, small and child.

I then ask Bishop when it is ok for a someone to rape a small child. You have dodged the question in every direction you can think of and then tried to insult me in a way as to not cross forum rules.

You don't want to answer the question because you know that the answer is NEVER, never is it ok to sexually rape a small child in any way. Why don't you want to answer that question with the correct answer? Because it would invalidate your claim that morals are relative.


----------



## Four (Mar 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You don't want to answer the question because you know that the answer is NEVER, never is it ok to sexually rape a small child in any way. Why don't you want to answer that question with the correct answer? Because it would invalidate your claim that morals are relative.



unless your god commands it


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2012)

Four said:


> unless your god commands it



I don't believe that would happen.


----------



## Four (Mar 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't believe that would happen.



irrelevant!


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2012)

Four said:


> irrelevant!



Nope, empiricism and logic tell me so.


----------



## Four (Mar 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Nope, empiricism and logic tell me so.



Empiricism and logic tell you there is no god!

The bible tells you that god = morality, so if god says to rape, make with the rape!


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2012)

Four said:


> Empiricism and logic tell you there is no god!


Na-ah Logic and empiricism tell me there is no way to a transcendent moral code without God.



> The bible tells you that god = morality,* so if god says to rape*, make with the rape!



I thought we already talk about this.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't believe that would happen.



He's commanded some kooky stuff from his followers.  I wouldn't put it passed him.



Four said:


> Empiricism and logic tell you there is no god!
> 
> The bible tells you that god = morality, so if god says to rape, make with the rape!



I saw a program once where a theologian was talking about the story of Soddom and Gammorah. He said that when Lott's daughters got him drunk and raped him, they were illustrating the wonderful ways that man will adapt to an adverse situation (praise god).  The daughters thought that the whole Earth was burned and they took it upon themselves to try to re-populate it.  I take that to mean that god says there is a time and place to get a little weird.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I saw a program once where a theologian was talking about the story of Soddom and Gammorah. He said that when Lott's daughters got him drunk and raped him, they were illustrating the wonderful ways that man will adapt to an adverse situation (praise god).  The daughters thought that the whole Earth was burned and they took it upon themselves to try to re-populate it.  I take that to mean that god says there is a time and place to get a little weird.



Having read that story a few times, I am convinced the daughters are not supposed to be viewed kindly.  Sounds like that theologian was trying to find things that were not there.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Having read that story a few times, I am convinced the daughters are not supposed to be viewed kindly.  Sounds like that theologian was trying to find things that were not there.



I give you and he equal credence in your interpretations.  Does god do some pretty wicked stuff in the Bible?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Having read that story a few times, I am convinced the daughters are not supposed to be viewed kindly.  Sounds like that theologian was trying to find things that were not there.



I give you and he equal credence in your interpretations.  Does god do some pretty wicked stuff in the Bible? I would say that He's the model for situational morality.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I give you and he equal credence in your interpretations. .



Ok.  I encourage you to read it yourself to determine if the daughters are the good guys or the bad guys.  Certainly don't take my word for it.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You won't, or should I say can't, answer a question. I understand completely what you are trying to say, and in turn, I am asking you a question. Why can't you just answer the question?
> 
> Here is my logic. Bishop is sitting on the couch and watching the news, a story comes on about a child being raped by his or her uncle. The uncle forced the child into a closet and sexually molested the child. Bishop thinks to himself "that is not right" which implies that there is a wrong, and that wrong is that the uncle should not have raped that child.
> 
> ...




I'll take more stab to see if you can comprehend.  I doubt  it, but I will try.

First I, like you, cannot fathom a scenerio for anyone to rape anyone, let alone a child, and it would be acceptable.  It is not in my abilities to do so. But that, in no certain terms, means it is a universal (being all encompassing of time and all cultures throughout history) moral.  Mankind, since our time began, has shown, (including christians) that morals are relative to the times and circumstance in which they dwell.  This is an indisputable fact.  You cannot possibly argue otherwise, history will prove you wrong.  Christians are not, I repeat, not immune to this, again to argue otherwise is to ignore history.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I'll take more stab to see if you can comprehend.  I doubt  it, but I will try.


Bishop, if you could try to refrain from calling me stupid I would appreciate it. I have not insulted you and I would appreciate the same respect in our conversations.


How can you say this...


> First I, like you, cannot fathom a scenerio for anyone to rape anyone, let alone a child, and it would be acceptable.  It is not in my abilities to do so.


and then this...



> But that, in no certain terms, means it is a universal (being all encompassing of time and all cultures throughout history) moral.







> Mankind, since our time began, has shown, (including christians) that morals are relative to the times and circumstance in which they dwell.  This is an indisputable fact.  You cannot possibly argue otherwise, history will prove you wrong.  Christians are not, I repeat, not immune to this, again to argue otherwise is to ignore history.



So let me get this straight, because at some point in time people thought it ok to rape children(which I don't think has ever happened), that makes it ok? Relative to their time and place?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 16, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> First I, like you, cannot fathom a scenerio for anyone to rape anyone, let alone a child, and it would be acceptable.



BTW, welcome to your first moral absolute.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> BTW, welcome to your first moral absolute.



I can try and explain it 1000 diferent ways but until you get the answer you want to hear, right or wrong, you will continue to dismiss everything else.


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Having read that story a few times, I am convinced the daughters are not supposed to be viewed kindly.  Sounds like that theologian was trying to find things that were not there.



Sounds like anyone can make anything sound the way they want in order to prove or disprove something. Its a 2-way street...


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> BTW, welcome to your first moral absolute.



Moral Absolutes that come from the God of the Bible?
hmmmmm, like these?

(Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children.  "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin."  Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives.  But there were not enough women for all of them.  The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel.  So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead?  There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever.  But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem.  They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards.  When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!  And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding.  Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"  So the men of Benjamin did as they were told.  They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.  Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.  So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

OR

(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded.  "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

OR

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

OR

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

OR

(2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.  I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor.  He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.  You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."  Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.  But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." 

OR

(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. 

OR

(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
 Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2012)

String, being you are so fond of Moral Absolutes, when...or at what age is it okay to KILL children? I am not talking about abortion. I am talking about when is it okay to flat out murder a child?
1. Never
2. Sometimes
3. Depends if they were the first born.
4. When God commands it.


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 16, 2012)

I have come to the conclusion that trying to convince string of anything that does not conform to his "way of thinking" is like trying to teach a pig to dance - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2012)

One more for String to ponder:
Numbers 31:17-18

King James Version (KJV)

 17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

 18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Moral Absolutes that come from the God of the Bible?
> hmmmmm, like these?
> 
> (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
> ...





bullethead said:


> One more for String to ponder:
> Numbers 31:17-18
> 
> King James Version (KJV)
> ...




Old Testament.  We don't have to do that stuff anymore.  It was the law.  They were _moral absolutes_ til they got changed when Jesus came along.  It's everything else in the Bible that never changes. (Roll Eyes)


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Old Testament.  We don't have to do that stuff anymore.  It was the law.  They were _moral absolutes_ til they got changed when Jesus came along.  It's everything else in the Bible that never changes. (Roll Eyes)



Yeah, God is Jesus, Jesus IS God and they gave us those Morals upon creation.  Does God lead by example or are we to hold ourselves above his own commands and actions? Either way those verses set a horrific standard for Morals. I have never seen String silent for so long. Honestly I can't blame him and I must admit that I respect him for not even trying to come up with a defense for those.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 16, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> No, you're not.
> 
> _“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ _



Perhaps this objection could be satisfied by changing the hypothetical from a wife beating christian to a slave owning christian?


----------



## fish hawk (Mar 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Just for my PBJ sandwiches. I am not as well schooled with prison terms and ways as you seem to be. I'll chalk it up to me never setting foot in one. A lot of people "find" Jesus while incarcerated. Hopefully you are just locked up part time as a Corrections Officer, it could explain your in depth knowledge of the practices that go on there. Otherwise......



Naw...Saw it on HBO!!!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Naw...Saw it on HBO!!!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> I have come to the conclusion that trying to convince string of anything that does not conform to his "way of thinking" is like trying to teach a pig to dance - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.



You guys annoyed yet?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> You guys annoyed yet?



Gratified.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Gratified.



Just putting the shoe on the other hoof.


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 16, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Perhaps this objection could be satisfied by changing the hypothetical from a wife beating christian to a slave owning christian?



Ahhh, Atlashunter...nice to have you here...Lets see how they do with your option.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Just putting the shoe on the other hoof.



Fits.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Fits.



Sorry for being short.

I meant to say that "you guys" seem as ridiculous to "us", as "we" seem to "you".

Or, you are crazy to believe differently then I, just as I seem crazy to believe differently than you.

I think that fits.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Old Testament.  We don't have to do that stuff anymore.  It was the law.  They were _moral absolutes_ til they got changed when Jesus came along.  It's everything else in the Bible that never changes. (Roll Eyes)



I wonder if any of the believers read the book of Revelation?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I wonder if any of the believers read the book of Revelation?



My kid used to read it for fun, he liked all the crazy stuff, I guess most boys would.

But, yes, I am sure we all have read it, and none of us know what it all means. I have read a bunch of theories, but the most interesting one is that the characters are constellations, and a much of it is a history told through them...I don't know what to think of it all.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 17, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> My kid used to read it for fun, he liked all the crazy stuff, I guess most boys would.
> 
> But, yes, I am sure we all have read it, and none of us know what it all means. I have read a bunch of theories, but the most interesting one is that the characters are constellations, and a much of it is a history told through them...I don't know what to think of it all.



Maybe somebody ate the wrong kind of mushrooms...


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> My kid used to read it for fun, he liked all the crazy stuff, I guess most boys would.
> 
> But, yes, I am sure we all have read it, and none of us know what it all means. I have read a bunch of theories, but the most interesting one is that the characters are constellations, and a much of it is a history told through them...I don't know what to think of it all.



I was interested in the morals displayed in Revelation by God and Jesus.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 17, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Old Testament.  We don't have to do that stuff anymore.  It was the law.  They were _moral absolutes_ til they got changed when Jesus came along.  It's everything else in the Bible that never changes. (Roll Eyes)



Nothing changed "when Jesus came along".  God has always dealt with man on the basis of faith.  Galatians 3 summarizes this well.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 17, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Perhaps this objection could be satisfied by changing the hypothetical from a wife beating christian to a slave owning christian?



You should invite a slave-owning Christian to join the forum so we can discuss it further.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 17, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> You should invite a slave-owning Christian to join the forum so we can discuss it further.



Well at least you don't deny that a slave owner can be a christian. That's progress of a sort.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 17, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe somebody ate the wrong kind of mushrooms...



Perhaps, it is a wild story for sure.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I was interested in the morals displayed in Revelation by God and Jesus.



????


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> String, being you are so fond of Moral Absolutes, when...or at what age is it okay to KILL children? I am not talking about abortion. I am talking about when is it okay to flat out murder a child?



It is not ok for me to murder a child.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> I have come to the conclusion that trying to convince string of anything that does not conform to his "way of thinking" is like trying to teach a pig to dance - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.



So, what should I do if I think some morals are absolute and objective?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Moral Absolutes that come from the God of the Bible?
> hmmmmm, like these?
> 
> (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
> ...



God is the author and giver of life, He is also the judge.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I can try and explain it 1000 diferent ways but until you get the answer you want to hear, right or wrong, you will continue to dismiss everything else.





You can't get around the fact that you have been arguing that all morals are relative and you believe that raping a child is never to happen, which is a moral absolute.

I think this is what it boils down to, you don't want to think that you would somehow agree with a Christian worldview by admitting that some morals are objective and should never happen, therefor, you say that morals are relative all the while living your life with objective morals.

It's almost like modern day liberals, they don't like capitalism in theory, but live their lives in a capitalistic way everyday.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 19, 2012)

One has to be honest to themselves and admit the "Christian worldview" has changed significantly over the years.
Biblical interpretation and doctrine has proven to be quite fluid.  Asath has started a post on that very subject.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, God is Jesus, Jesus IS God and they gave us those Morals upon creation.  Does God lead by example or are we to hold ourselves above his own commands and actions? Either way those verses set a horrific standard for Morals.


I thought morals were relative?



> * I have never seen String silent for so long*. Honestly I can't blame him and I must admit that I respect him for not even trying to come up with a defense for those.



Yes you have, every weekend. Take a look at my post history, I _rarely_ post on the weekends.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It is not ok for me to murder a child.


How do you know it is not OKAY? Why do you bypass your God's commands and actions to make you come to that conclusion?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> God is the author and giver of life, He is also the judge.



So when says to kill and rape that is fine with you even though it goes directly against the absolute morals you claim he has and has given to us all??

I am just trying to figure out why you do not follow your God's examples.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You can't get around the fact that you have been arguing that all morals are relative and you believe that raping a child is never to happen, which is a moral absolute.
> 
> I think this is what it boils down to, you don't want to think that you would somehow agree with a Christian worldview by admitting that some morals are objective and should never happen, therefor, you say that morals are relative all the while living your life with objective morals.
> 
> It's almost like modern day liberals, they don't like capitalism in theory, but live their lives in a capitalistic way everyday.



String, we may have it wrong about rape if we are to follow your God's commands.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I thought morals were relative?



String, pick your side and stick to it. If you want to agree with me that morals are relative then we are done in this thread. But I am trying very hard to see your side of the story using your God and his examples in scripture to guide me and convince me of these absolute morals. Are you telling me God is above his own morals?





stringmusic said:


> Yes you have, every weekend. Take a look at my post history, I _rarely_ post on the weekends.



I have seen plenty of posts by you on a Friday afternoon and I specifically watched for and had seen your Green Dot lit up that you were online checking the posts. It was on and off numerous times throughout the day and night on Friday when I posted the examples of scripture that you are trying hard to tippy-toe around. You say it is never OKAY to rape a child as it is built into our souls by God, but your God not only says it is OKAY...he commands it in the scripture I posted. God didn't do the raping, he told humans to do it.  Why do you use certain situations like murder and rape as moral absolutes that are not acceptable to do because your God gave us a higher sense of moral values that supersede those actions, yet in the scripture you follow your God commands those things to be done?


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You can't get around the fact that you have been arguing that all morals are relative and you believe that raping a child is never to happen, which is a moral absolute.
> 
> Yes You and I _believe_ that raping a small child should never happen.  It by in no means makes  moral absolute. You ignore every logical point, and reach the conclusions you want.  I highlight that you have defined a moral absolute that contains ambiguity, and thus CANNOT be an absolute.  But you ignore this and continue your illogical rant.
> 
> ...



Yes your are like a modern lib.  You ignore history, fact, and logic, to form a position based on falshoods, that is impractical, and incorrect.  There is no way to get you to see your error becuase in order to come to your position you have to ignore all that is known, and assert things from a position of fiction, rather than a position of reality.  

Were in your bible does it tell you your moral absolutes?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> How do you know it is not OKAY?


The same way you do.



> Why do you bypass your God's commands and actions to make you come to that conclusion?



Can you show me were God has commanded everyone to murder or rape?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> String, pick your side and stick to it. If you want to agree with me that morals are relative then we are done in this thread.


I have a side bullet, I was asking how you can make moral claims against God in the OT and at the same time believe morals are relative.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Yes You and I believe that raping a small child should never happen.



You're hilarious, your making a moral absolute claim, and in the next sentence you say...


> It by in no means makes moral absolute.


I'm being illogical?


> You ignore every logical point, and reach the conclusions you want. I highlight that you have defined a moral absolute that contains ambiguity, and thus CANNOT be an absolute. But you ignore this and continue your illogical rant.


I have spelled out my logic very clearly in this thread. If the claim that raping a child is relative, then give me a time and place that it ok for it to happen, if you can't do that, then you believe in a moral absolute.




TheBishop said:


> Yes your are like a modern lib.  You ignore history, fact, and logic, to form a position based on falshoods, that is impractical, and incorrect.  There is no way to get you to see your error becuase in order to come to your position you have to ignore all that is known, and assert things from a position of fiction, rather than a position of reality.


It's funny, you type, but you don't say anything.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
> If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.



Doesn't this indicate that rape is bad?


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You're hilarious, your making a moral absolute claim, and in the next sentence you say...
> 
> I'm being illogical?
> 
> ...





I just don't know how to be more clear.  At this point in time I beginning to think your messing with me, becuase there is no way you could not get something so incredible simple.  

Maybe if I make it bigger?

I, ME, MYSELF, THE INDIVIDUAL OF MY OWN BEING BELIEVE THAT RAPING ANYONE (SMALL AND CHILD ARE RELATIVE TERMS, STRING NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY THEY ARE) IS WRONG.  JUST BECUASE _I_ BELIEVE THAT, IT IN NO WAY, MAKES IT UNIVERSAL FOR ALL BEINGS AND ALL TIMES. JUST BECUASE I FIND IT REPREHENSIBLE DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE, IN EVERYPLACE, AND EVERYTIME WILL.  

Is that clear enough? I do not need to come up with a wild scenerio, to make my point. I also find the taking of someones life "immoral" but we know that is also relative to our time and place in history.  We now consider owning slaves "immoral" had we been born 200 years ago, we wouldn't.  Some christians think drinking is immoral, some don't, same with premarital sex, homosexuality, drug use, abortion, working on the sabbath, eating meat on fridays during lent, and I could go on forever! 

If you don't get it you never will.  Its funny you type but you don't think anything.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 19, 2012)

String were in your bible does it tell you your moral absolutes? 

Are they listed as absolutes?   Were in your bible does it address the rape of a child?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The same way you do.


I think you are mistaken on that fact. I do not know it is wrong by the teachings of the God of the Bible nor do I know it is wrong because that same God programmed that into me when he created me.

I have come to my own conclusions as to why it is wrong based off of society, upbringing, experience and personal thoughts.





stringmusic said:


> Can you show me were God has commanded everyone to murder or rape?


String, you overlook the examples given to you when I posted the scripture that YOU follow. The examples you want now have been given to you on Friday. You see them, ignore them, and continue like they were never given and yet you ask for of them again.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I have a side bullet, I was asking how you can make moral claims against God in the OT and at the same time believe morals are relative.



I have to do that because you can't see it the way I see it so I must use your own ways to point out the error in them.
I told you once before, THE reason I do not believe the Bible is because I read the Bible. ALL of the Bible, not just the cutsie bits and pieces that make everyone feel good. I don't skip over and ignore the things in there that directly counter what you are trying to say is not true. You say morals come from God. I show you Gods morals in YOUR own book.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I just don't know how to be more clear.  At this point in time I beginning to think your messing with me, becuase there is no way you could not get something so incredible simple.
> 
> Maybe if I make it bigger?
> 
> I, ME, MYSELF, THE INDIVIDUAL OF MY OWN BEING BELIEVE THAT RAPING ANYONE (SMALL AND CHILD ARE RELATIVE TERMS, STRING NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY THEY ARE) IS WRONG.  JUST BECUASE _I_ BELIEVE THAT, IT IN NO WAY, MAKES IT UNIVERSAL FOR ALL BEINGS AND ALL TIMES. JUST BECUASE I FIND IT REPREHENSIBLE DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE, IN EVERYPLACE, AND EVERYTIME WILL.


You're equating people not adhering to what you believe to be a moral absolute as meaning that the moral absolute does not exist. So because someone at some point in time thought it ok to rape a child that somehow negates the fact that YOU think it is not ok for it to ever happen. If you believe that raping a child is wrong, no matter what anyone else on the planet has ever or will ever think about raping a child, you believe in at least one moral absolute. 



> Some christians think drinking is immoral, some don't, same with premarital sex, homosexuality, drug use, abortion, working on the sabbath, eating meat on fridays during lent, and I could go on forever!


Everything is not absolute and or immoral.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Doesn't this indicate that rape is bad?



It indicates that as long as some guy gives 50 pieces of silver he can rape whoever he wants as long as she is not engaged. Does it say the man must be jailed or killed? Nope. 50 pieces of silver and he must marry her.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> String were in your bible does it tell you your moral absolutes?


The ten commandments are one place, there are tons of other places, I'm not sure I could name all of them.

 I am speaking more along the lines of inherent morals, things that you know to be wrong without someone having to tell you. 



> Were in your bible does it address the rape of a child?


Mathew 7:12 is one place.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It indicates that as long as some guy gives 50 pieces of silver* he can rape whoever he wants* as long as she is not engaged. Does it say the man must be jailed or killed? Nope. 50 pieces of silver and he must marry her.



Where did you come up with this??


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You're equating people not adhering to what you believe to be a moral absolute as meaning that the moral absolute does not exist. So because someone at some point in time thought it ok to rape a child that somehow negates the fact that YOU think it is not ok for it to ever happen. If you believe that raping a child is wrong, no matter what anyone else on the planet has ever or will ever think about raping a child, you believe in at least one moral absolute.
> 
> 
> Everything is not absolute and or immoral.



No string I don't.  To me a moral absolute, does not exist, morals, are total construct of man.  I do not like to think in terms of moral and immoral _becuase_ there are no absolutes.  If I defined them to myself, and could not have them universally applied, then they are arbitrary, and invdividualistic.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I have to do that because you can't see it the way I see it so I must use your own ways to point out the error in them.



No, you don't have to, you could say, "well, God use morals as He saw fit during that time and place, so it's ok" How can you call His judgements immoral?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Where did you come up with this??



Scripture. It is the way I interpret the verse you asked me about.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> No string I don't. * To me a moral absolute, does not exist,* morals, are total construct of man.


So, when is it ok to rape a child? Your logic is circular at best.



> * I do not like to think in terms of moral and immoral becuase there are no absolutes.*  If I defined them to myself, and could not have them universally applied, then they are arbitrary, and invdividualistic.



I think it would be a safe bet you make thousands of moral judgements every week.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Scripture. It is the way I interpret the verse you asked me about.



Show me what made you interpret that particular verse saying that it was ok for a man to rape as long as he paid his 50 silver pieces. It looks to me like a punishment for raping someone.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The ten commandments are one place, there are tons of other places, I'm not sure I could name all of them.
> 
> You mean thou shall not kill? Yet there are times we find it acceptable? Thou shall not steal?  I can come up with an acceptable moral scenario to do so couldn't you? Arbitrary!
> 
> ...



Do unto others does not address the specific thing we are talking about. But if thats all you got, thats all you got.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> So, when is it ok to rape a child? Your logic is circular at best.  At least I'm using _some_ logic
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would be a safe bet you make thousands of moral judgements every week.



I have addresed this, every which way, in the simplest terms possible.  I cannot help you understand when you refuse to use simple reasoning.   

I make judgements off logic, some maybe considered moral.  I do not make judgements off what is moral. Morality becuase it is entirely relative and arbitrary is a poor guide for daily actions.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No, you don't have to, you could say, "well, God use morals as He saw fit during that time and place, so it's ok" How can you call His judgements immoral?



1. I don't believe he exists so I would not acknowledge his actions as if they happened. I would not with any amount of seriousness  discuss the morals of Bugs Bunny either.

2. Since you do not accept my thoughts about where I think I get my morals, I must play in your sandbox and use your toys to show you that what you are telling me just does not jive with what your God actually does. By me looking at it from your side, I clearly see a God that performs himself, and commands others to do those immoral acts....the very ones which you tell me that you personally know are immoral through a divine gift from your God.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> At least I'm using some logic


Feel free to tell me where my logic fails.


stringmusic said:


> Here is my logic. Bishop is sitting on the couch and watching the news, a story comes on about a child being raped by his or her uncle. The uncle forced the child into a closet and sexually molested the child. Bishop thinks to himself "that is not right" which implies that there is a wrong, and that wrong is that the uncle should not have raped that child.
> 
> Bishop then says that morals are relative. If morals are relative then there is a time and a place that it is ok to rape a child, with whatever definition you can possible think of for rape, small and child.
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Show me what made you interpret that particular verse saying that it was ok for a man to rape as long as he paid his 50 silver pieces. It looks to me like a punishment for raping someone.



Does fining an NFL linebacker for hitting a defenseless QB STOP them from doing it again? Sometimes crime is affordable.

You DO realize that the fine involved is only if the man was raping another Israelite right? If he decides to branch out and rape anyone outside of his faith it is the spoils of war and A-OK with the Lord.

Stop skipping over the verses you just have no defense for.

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Numbers 31:17-18 KJV
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

So far we got murder and rape and slavery. I have plenty more waiting in the wings if you wish to continue...of course AFTER you make excuses for these two examples above.....


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Feel free to tell me where my logic fails.



You would have to use it in order for it to fail.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Feel free to tell me where my logic fails.



It fails here:

Numbers 31:17-18 KJV
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the *women children*, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Does fining an NFL linebacker for hitting a defenseless QB STOP them from doing it again? Sometimes crime is affordable.
> 
> You DO realize that the fine involved is only if the man was raping another Israelite right? If he decides to branch out and rape anyone outside of his faith it is the spoils of war and A-OK with the Lord.


Again your reading something that is not there to suit your point you're trying to make, not where in the Dueteronomy passage that you have quoted does "spoils of war" indicate that it was ok to rape the women.



> Stop skipping over the verses you just have no defense for.
> 
> (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
> As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
> ...



Bullet, I am no biblical scholar and I cannot answer all your questions on all your scripture that you are pulling out of context. If this is where you want to go with this argument, then you win.

I do have an apologetics study bible and have looked up a few of the verses that you have pointed out, there are some pretty good explanations of what was happening at the time. I don't feel like copying all that was said down, just know that there are many sufficient for me explanations for your argument.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It fails here:
> 
> Numbers 31:17-18 KJV
> 17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
> 18But all the *women children*, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.



It doesn't say it is ok to rape them.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> You would have to use it in order for it to fail.



We're done here bishop, your "intellectual superiority" is delusional. The "I know you are but what am I" and "Your just stupid" arguments are getting a bit tired. I will not respond again to you in this thread.


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I do have an apologetics study bible and have looked up a few of the verses that you have pointed out, there are some pretty good explanations of what was happening at the time. I don't feel like copying all that was said down, just know that there are many sufficient for me explanations for your argument.


 
Many of the rants would cease if the ranters had one going into these questions. 
Just my 2 pesos


----------



## WELLS8230 (Mar 19, 2012)

will somebody make up my mind?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Many of the rants would cease if the ranters had one going into these questions.
> Just my 2 pesos



I agree, great tool for the believer and the non believer.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> We're done here bishop, your "intellectual superiority" is delusional. The "I know you are but what am I" and "Your just stupid" arguments are getting a bit tired. I will not respond again to you in this thread.



I cannot say I'm disappointed or surprised.


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 19, 2012)

A study of the relative nature of morality poses interesting questions. Penetrating questions regarding morality make many people uncomfortable or angry because they often interfere with their personal view of morality or history. It is often painful to come to terms with the relative nature of the human concept we call morality.

A system of morality that relies on the existence of gods or godlike beings is irrational because no god or godlike beings have ever manifested themselves in an objective manner to human beings. There is no evidence whatsoever that a god exists or has ever existed, anywhere, at any time. In fact, all objective evidence available to man precludes and contradicts the existence of a god or gods.

Thus, an attempt to seek morality as a derivative of non-existing gods is difficult to justify. In all religions, faith and fairytales replace and supersede factual evidence. The faith-based acceptance of a theological doctrine of morality reflects merely illusions or delusions: Faith is necessary only for the acceptance as true of a statement that objective evidence has already proven false. Faith is only necessary if religious dogma is in direct conflict with objective reality.

No matter which one of the many religious text we might adapt as the basis for our own morality, we are making such choice based on our individual preferences and convictions. We are choosing our own morality from a variety of religious moralities. Again, we choose our own morality. We are not considering if we should follow an absolute, universal, objective religious morality, but we are considering which one of many relative, subjective morality systems we should select from a smorgasbord of religious morality systems.

Thus, by making a personal choice from many contradictory religious morality systems, we end up with a personal, relative morality, rather than an absolute, objective, universal morality.


Excerpt from Book: "How Life Really Works"


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 19, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> A study of the relative nature of morality poses interesting questions. Penetrating questions regarding morality make many people uncomfortable or angry because they often interfere with their personal view of morality or history. It is often painful to come to terms with the relative nature of the human concept we call morality.
> 
> A system of morality that relies on the existence of gods or godlike beings is irrational because no god or godlike beings have ever manifested themselves in an objective manner to human beings. There is no evidence whatsoever that a god exists or has ever existed, anywhere, at any time. In fact, all objective evidence available to man precludes and contradicts the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> ...



It really is that simple.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Again your reading something that is not there to suit your point you're trying to make, not where in the Dueteronomy passage that you have quoted does "spoils of war" indicate that it was ok to rape the women.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is nothing in those verses that is out of context. when it says the LORD says:.....then it is darn clear. Your apologetic study Bible wouldn't have needed to be written if your all powerful all knowing being had so much as a FINGER to do with the first bible. Your apologetic bible is man attempting to make sense of ancient man's ways and put it in a spin that just does not exist. It is made for people like you that are holding onto some sort of hope that Santa really exists.
All that is cool when you believe it and go about your day and talk to like-minded people about those things. When you come in here there is a higher expectation that is required for those things to be taken as believable let alone real and factual. 
I know you do not believe as I do and I am not trying to get you to change, but I do not accept what is written in the Bible as fact and since the Bible is the ONLY thing many believers take as fact, I will use it to show what really is contained in those pages.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It doesn't say it is ok to rape them.



So these kind hearted men that just killed the "women childrens" fathers, brothers, mothers and sisters (that have been with a man) are now going to take these poor little waifs in and raise them properly???????? What are they commanded to keep them alive for themselves for???? Oh Moral slavery maybe??


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> There is nothing in those verses that is out of context.



You can't take 1 or 2 or 4 verses and make some type of whole system out of it, one must take the bible as a whole to understand what is being taught and meant to understand.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So these kind hearted men that just killed the "women childrens" fathers, brothers, mothers and sisters (that have been with a man) are now going to take these poor little waifs in and raise them properly???????? What are they commanded to keep them alive for themselves for???? Oh Moral slavery maybe??



Are you admitting that in that particular verse we are discussing, that is doesn't mean that it is ok to rape them?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Are you admitting that in that particular verse we are discussing, that is doesn't mean that it is ok to rape them?



No, in fact I think it is understood that "keeping them alive for themselves" includes rape.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You can't take 1 or 2 or 4 verses and make some type of whole system out of it, one must take the bible as a whole to understand what is being taught and meant to understand.



Everyone else on this planet is not judged as whole. I cannot go up and down my neighborhood and kill the first born of every household and have it "overlooked" because as a whole I have been a very model citizen, husband, father, son, businessman otherwise. I cannot rape "women children" and have it overlooked. I cannot rape a non engaged woman and pay 50 pieces of silver to make it all good.
I got some news for you, it is not just 1 or 2 or 4 verses. The book is just as bad as it is good and as a whole is why I do not like it, trust it, or recommend it.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Everyone else on this planet is not judged as whole. I cannot go up and down my neighborhood and kill the first born of every household and have it "overlooked" because as a whole I have been a very model citizen, husband, father, son, businessman otherwise. I cannot rape "women children" and have it overlooked. I cannot rape a non engaged woman and pay 50 pieces of silver to make it all good.
> I got some news for you, it is not just 1 or 2 or 4 verses. The book is just as bad as it is good and as a whole is why I do not like it, trust it, or recommend it.



The book (Bible) is about God, and humans. It is not supposed to be ALL good, because it is also about humans. If it left out all the parts where bad things happen, then I think it would be even harder to believe.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> The book (Bible) is about God, and humans. It is not supposed to be ALL good, because it is also about humans. If it left out all the parts where bad things happen, then I think it would be even harder to believe.



I can agree with that but I would add that the humans are not exclusive to bad and immoral in the book (bible).


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I can agree with that but I would add that the humans are not exclusive to bad and immoral in the book (bible).



Yeah there is some Devil stuff in there too!

As for God, I posted on a different thread, that I do not have the authority to pass that judgement on any human, and especially not on God.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Yeah there is some Devil stuff in there too!
> 
> As for God, I posted on a different thread, that I do not have the authority to pass that judgement on any human, and especially not on God.



Dare we do a moral comparison between the Devil and God? Better not as it would be lopsided......


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Dare we do a moral comparison between the Devil and God? Better not as it would be lopsided......



Maybe on another thread! Perhaps we should not muddy the waters anymore than they already are!


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 20, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> You can't set up a scenario with a "Christian" who "reads the Bible" and then say that you don't want that same Bible to be used as the standard of conduct.
> 
> It's like setting up a scenario with an American citizen on trial and saying, "Please do not respond with quotes from the U.S Constitution, Federal and state laws, or prior court decisions.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No, you don't have to, you could say, "well, God use morals as He saw fit during that time and place, so it's ok" How can you call His judgements immoral?



On what basis can you call him moral?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 28, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> On what basis can you call him moral?



That I believe He is God and the creator and reference point of morality.


----------



## Four (Mar 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> That I believe He is God and the creator and reference point of morality.



That creates a whole slew of problems as well.

Is it gods actions? or gods words? What if they contradict? Is god held to the same morality as man? If not, it hardly seems objective.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> That I believe He is God and the creator and reference point of morality.



Interesting. So there really are no moral absolutes then? If he tells you to slaughter everyone in a city down to the last man, woman, and child then doing so is considered a moral act simply by virtue of his having commanded it? Same for taking others into slavery. Same in fact for killing your own child. Nothing is off the table morally speaking as long as it has his blessing.

In doing this, aren't you simply redefining good and evil? Isn't it true that there is no act which we would normally view as evil that could be called such as long as it was approved by god? And doesn't it make morals completely arbitrary and subject to the whims of your deity rather than absolute?


----------

