things we can agree are right/wrong no matter our religions/beliefs what can we agree on?

[Joefizz]

1 hour ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

Try answering posts first. You've ignored several of mine. I'm almost done here, considering my effort is completely ignored and overlooked. 

Well sorry if you feel ignored,I am on multiple chat sites discussing bible subjects so if I don't respond to a post chances are that I'm on another site,though this week I have focused my attention to particularly this site and a Christian chat site,though I do try to answer when I can on all the sites but I'm  not able to answer or even notice every post directed to me,so try to be patient or if you feel it to be a post you want answered above your others then quote it,I realize you probably already have done this,but I'm not ignoring your posts I just haven't gotten to them yet,especially considering how many of your posts or other people's posts take more considerable time to not only look over but answer efficiently.

 

[midniterider]

9 hours ago, Joefizz said:

teaching about the quote gay lifestyle being wrong is for a purpose of helping someone,telling someone about their lifestyle being wrong outright is for a purpose of hurting someone.

 

There's nothing wrong with being gay. I have gay relatives. Their lives are just like anyone elses.

[midniterider]

10 hours ago, Joefizz said:

Not really common sense can be used too to determine it is wrong.

 

Have you told us why it's wrong to be gay (using common sense) ? 

 

Common sense says Jesus is merely your imagination. Just you talking to yourself, basically.

 

 

[midniterider]

9 hours ago, Joefizz said:

No I wouldn't teach anyone to ignore Matthew chp.5 as I said the law was fulfilled not done away with and have spoken on many times that it is spiritually good if one can abide by one of the commandments of the old law or more,what I'm getting at is that the law doesn't condemn anyone unto death as it did before Jesus came,so if a person were to be in violation of the old law they are not to be killed for that violation,because it is to be understood that God is long suffering for all to be led to repentance,so if everyone died by way of the law then it would make Jesus's crucifixion and fulfilling of the law,of no effect,it doesn't mean we aren't held accountable for our trespasses,it means in a more simple stand point if we do something that is against the old law then we should not expect death for our trespass nor should we seek to kill those whom trespass,for example one of the commandments is to not covet(lust or desire that which is not ours) many people covet yet you don't see them dropping down dead because the commandment is no longer unto death if one trespasses against it.

that's what I was trying to establish.

 

So the unchanging God changed his mind about the old law. Roger that.

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, Joefizz said:

let me see if I can get this thread back on track again...

It is "wrong "to rig a machine so that noone can win from it after paying money for a possibility to win a prize.

 

If your God rigs it, it's right(eous).

If a human being rigs it, it's wrong.

 

Therefore there is no moral code. Every behavior is right...and wrong...at the same time. Woohoo!

[Joefizz]

On 9/7/2017 at 5:25 PM, ag_NO_stic said:

 

1) How do you reconcile your belief with Deuteronomy 20? The Lord your God is instructing his people on the protocol for war, explicitly giving permission to take the women and children for themselves as well as forced labor of other subjects. The women and children (as well as livestock) specifically are referred to as "plunder." The next chapter has equally disturbing instructions for a forced wife and how she shall not be subject to slavery if he is "displeased with her" (sexually). Please feel free to do more research into the disturbing practice of "finding a woman attractive and making her a wife" which is a nicer way of saying sexual slavery.

 

2) See above, though I would also be interested in your opinion of Exodus 21. I mean no sarcasm when I say this (hard to tell over the internet lol), but please see verses 20-21 and 26-27 before you try to educate me on what slavery meant in bible times. There are certainly cases of indentured servanthood for poor people, but war slavery is it's own ballgame and not to be minimized.

 

3) The above verses mentioned discuss how fathers treat their daughters. Granted, my own father never sold me into sexual slavery for financial gain, but he did find it his right to "give me" to my husband. How do you view this concept? (In your answer, please consider how this is problematic for me as a woman, since you as a male needn't worry about being your father's property.)

1.Well considering it was a time of war in Deuteronomy chp.20,and a time of establishing what was to be done concerning cities they came across,women,children,and cattle and spoil being acquired along the way was somewhat a blessing to the Israelites army as well as the enemy's women and children,of certain cities they were not to utterly destroy and slay all there in,because though the women and children would be servants in some sense to the Israelites at least they were not killed and still had a future,I see your point though that it was not open for dispute of the women and children in what they wanted thus following under the category of being in ownership to the Israelites as I suppose slaves because of there being no mention of them willingly serving the Israelites in debt payment for sparing their lives,so they are more along the lines of slaves of some manner,while not something I would consider as right in today's time I understand that due to the war unfortunately to keep the men of war going forward and focused on their objective, the subject of ownership concerning women and children was made bluntly simple minded and not open for debate,so I understand the reasoning for this but I don't believe this to have been the only way to handle things,a little more "Respect" could have at least been included toward the women and children,especially since that doesn't inspire trust between two groups of people.

1.continued-I've read enough of the bible to know what you mean by "disturbing practice of finding a woman attractive and making her a wife" you are correct many times is a man in the bible looking at a fare looking woman and wanting her for a wife,even if she is married already,or worse yet raping her then expecting to get her or at times wanting a woman in service to them with no "Love" in the mix,even david having so many wives and concubines put his head in the clouds so to speak when seeing bath-sheba and wanted her as his wife pretty much not appreciating having so many women that cared for him or that he could call on when lonely yet he still wanted supposedly just one more woman as a wife basically just asking for trouble,that I don't agree with,and certainly rape I don't agree with though I somewhat agree with the part about that if a man lusts after a virgin woman and humbles her(rapes her)he must pay her father for humbling her and the kicker that many men wouldn't like today to have to abide by"He MUST Marry her",now granted like I said I don't agree with rape but I can somewhat agree with at least that the pervert shouldn't be allowed to take off like that he did nothing he has to marry the woman he went after, granted it's not fair to the woman because the guy may turn out to be a terrible husband,but at least he isn't allowed to run away from "Responsibility" especially if she has a child from that one act of lust,and you know every family member would be watching him closely,I think it ridiculous how many people don't accept "Responsibility" for their actions especially concerning one night stands and responsibility for children,even marriage not being taken seriously,I certainly believe that not taking responsibility for one's action's is "wrong" as far as willfully blatant acts(mentally impaired people that's somewhat different).

[ag_NO_stic]

15 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

1.Well considering it was a time of war in Deuteronomy chp.20,and a time of establishing what was to be done concerning cities they came across,women,children,and cattle and spoil being acquired along the way was somewhat a blessing to the Israelites army as well as the enemy's women and children,of certain cities they were not to utterly destroy and slay all there in,because though the women and children would be servants in some sense to the Israelites at least they were not killed and still had a future,I see your point though that it was not open for dispute of the women and children in what they wanted thus following under the category of being in ownership to the Israelites as I suppose slaves because of there being no mention of them willingly serving the Israelites in debt payment for sparing their lives,so they are more along the lines of slaves of some manner,while not something I would consider as right in today's time I understand that due to the war unfortunately to keep the men of war going forward and focused on their objective, the subject of ownership concerning women and children was made bluntly simple minded and not open for debate,so I understand the reasoning for this but I don't believe this to have been the only way to handle things,a little more "Respect" could have at least been included toward the women and children,especially since that doesn't inspire trust between two groups of people.

1.continued-I've read enough of the bible to know what you mean by "disturbing practice of finding a woman attractive and making her a wife" you are correct many times is a man in the bible looking at a fare looking woman and wanting her for a wife,even if she is married already,or worse yet raping her then expecting to get her or at times wanting a woman in service to them with no "Love" in the mix,even david having so many wives and concubines put his head in the clouds so to speak when seeing bath-sheba and wanted her as his wife pretty much not appreciating having so many women that cared for him or that he could call on when lonely yet he still wanted supposedly just one more woman as a wife basically just asking for trouble,that I don't agree with,and certainly rape I don't agree with though I somewhat agree with the part about that if a man lusts after a virgin woman and humbles her(rapes her)he must pay her father for humbling her and the kicker that many men wouldn't like today to have to abide by"He MUST Marry her",now granted like I said I don't agree with rape but I can somewhat agree with at least that the pervert shouldn't be allowed to take off like that he did nothing he has to marry the woman he went after, granted it's not fair to the woman because the guy may turn out to be a terrible husband,but at least he isn't allowed to run away from "Responsibility" especially if she has a child from that one act of lust,and you know every family member would be watching him closely,I think it ridiculous how many people don't accept "Responsibility" for their actions especially concerning one night stands and responsibility for children,even marriage not being taken seriously,I certainly believe that not taking responsibility for one's action's is "wrong" as far as willfully blatant acts(mentally impaired people that's somewhat different).

 

I have been very cautious to use negative labels and namecalling. I will still refrain, but you should strongly consider how disgusting it is to believe the things you just said.

 

There is nothing....NOTHING...moral about forcing a woman to marry the man who rapes her. That is forcing her into regular, consistent rape, I honestly felt sick reading you try to rationalize that. A person's body, and mental/psychological/emotional/physical wellbeing are not to be bought for a price. Daughters are not a father's property to give, a wife is not a husband's property to give, a woman is not a man's to own.

 

You really need to wake up. These commands are directly from your god and they are evil.

[Joefizz]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

So the unchanging God changed his mind about the old law. Roger that.

Unchanging is referring to God's power,glory and principles,not to be interpreted that God never changes his mind,he can change his mind about an order he gives or is about to do,for example in Exodus when God was ready to destroy the Israelites after going against him and his anger being waxed hot toward them(exceedingly angry)Moses reminded him of "Why" he brought the Israelites out from Egypt,and that after going through so much to not onlu free them but keep them from being killed by pharoah,and so after Moses reasoning with him to not destroy them God repented of what he sought to do to them,this portion of the bible showing that God is open to changing his mind about things he seeks to do or have done.

[ag_NO_stic]

1 minute ago, Joefizz said:

Unchanging is referring to God's power,glory and principles,not to be interpreted that God never changes his mind,he can change his mind about an order he gives or is about to do,for example in Exodus when God was ready to destroy the Israelites after going against him and his anger being waxed hot toward them(exceedingly angry)Moses reminded him of "Why" he brought the Israelites out from Egypt,and that after going through so much to not onlu free them but keep them from being killed by pharoah,and so after Moses reasoning with him to not destroy them God repented of what he sought to do to them,this portion of the bible showing that God is open to changing his mind about things he seeks to do or have done.

 

Biblically wrong. Scholars will tell you that men perceived it as god changing his mind, but in order for your bible to preserve its "inerrant" claims, he cannot change his mind. This is discussed in that long post you completely ignored.

[ag_NO_stic]

22 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

1.Well considering it was a time of war in Deuteronomy chp.20,and a time of establishing what was to be done concerning cities they came across,women,children,and cattle and spoil being acquired along the way was somewhat a blessing to the Israelites army as well as the enemy's women and children,of certain cities they were not to utterly destroy and slay all there in,because though the women and children would be servants in some sense to the Israelites at least they were not killed and still had a future,I see your point though that it was not open for dispute of the women and children in what they wanted thus following under the category of being in ownership to the Israelites as I suppose slaves because of there being no mention of them willingly serving the Israelites in debt payment for sparing their lives,so they are more along the lines of slaves of some manner,while not something I would consider as right in today's time I understand that due to the war unfortunately to keep the men of war going forward and focused on their objective, the subject of ownership concerning women and children was made bluntly simple minded and not open for debate,so I understand the reasoning for this but I don't believe this to have been the only way to handle things,a little more "Respect" could have at least been included toward the women and children,especially since that doesn't inspire trust between two groups of people.

1.continued-I've read enough of the bible to know what you mean by "disturbing practice of finding a woman attractive and making her a wife" you are correct many times is a man in the bible looking at a fare looking woman and wanting her for a wife,even if she is married already,or worse yet raping her then expecting to get her or at times wanting a woman in service to them with no "Love" in the mix,even david having so many wives and concubines put his head in the clouds so to speak when seeing bath-sheba and wanted her as his wife pretty much not appreciating having so many women that cared for him or that he could call on when lonely yet he still wanted supposedly just one more woman as a wife basically just asking for trouble,that I don't agree with,and certainly rape I don't agree with though I somewhat agree with the part about that if a man lusts after a virgin woman and humbles her(rapes her)he must pay her father for humbling her and the kicker that many men wouldn't like today to have to abide by"He MUST Marry her",now granted like I said I don't agree with rape but I can somewhat agree with at least that the pervert shouldn't be allowed to take off like that he did nothing he has to marry the woman he went after, granted it's not fair to the woman because the guy may turn out to be a terrible husband,but at least he isn't allowed to run away from "Responsibility" especially if she has a child from that one act of lust,and you know every family member would be watching him closely,I think it ridiculous how many people don't accept "Responsibility" for their actions especially concerning one night stands and responsibility for children,even marriage not being taken seriously,I certainly believe that not taking responsibility for one's action's is "wrong" as far as willfully blatant acts(mentally impaired people that's somewhat different).

 

I'm also curious if you think god heard the pleas and prayers of those being slaughtered, kidnapped, and raped? I know he gave the order, so where do the victims' grief and despair come into it?

[ag_NO_stic]

25 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

1.Well considering it was a time of war in Deuteronomy chp.20,and a time of establishing what was to be done concerning cities they came across,women,children,and cattle and spoil being acquired along the way was somewhat a blessing to the Israelites army as well as the enemy's women and children,of certain cities they were not to utterly destroy and slay all there in,because though the women and children would be servants in some sense to the Israelites at least they were not killed and still had a future,I see your point though that it was not open for dispute of the women and children in what they wanted thus following under the category of being in ownership to the Israelites as I suppose slaves because of there being no mention of them willingly serving the Israelites in debt payment for sparing their lives,so they are more along the lines of slaves of some manner,while not something I would consider as right in today's time I understand that due to the war unfortunately to keep the men of war going forward and focused on their objective, the subject of ownership concerning women and children was made bluntly simple minded and not open for debate,so I understand the reasoning for this but I don't believe this to have been the only way to handle things,a little more "Respect" could have at least been included toward the women and children,especially since that doesn't inspire trust between two groups of people.

1.continued-I've read enough of the bible to know what you mean by "disturbing practice of finding a woman attractive and making her a wife" you are correct many times is a man in the bible looking at a fare looking woman and wanting her for a wife,even if she is married already,or worse yet raping her then expecting to get her or at times wanting a woman in service to them with no "Love" in the mix,even david having so many wives and concubines put his head in the clouds so to speak when seeing bath-sheba and wanted her as his wife pretty much not appreciating having so many women that cared for him or that he could call on when lonely yet he still wanted supposedly just one more woman as a wife basically just asking for trouble,that I don't agree with,and certainly rape I don't agree with though I somewhat agree with the part about that if a man lusts after a virgin woman and humbles her(rapes her)he must pay her father for humbling her and the kicker that many men wouldn't like today to have to abide by"He MUST Marry her",now granted like I said I don't agree with rape but I can somewhat agree with at least that the pervert shouldn't be allowed to take off like that he did nothing he has to marry the woman he went after, granted it's not fair to the woman because the guy may turn out to be a terrible husband,but at least he isn't allowed to run away from "Responsibility" especially if she has a child from that one act of lust,and you know every family member would be watching him closely,I think it ridiculous how many people don't accept "Responsibility" for their actions especially concerning one night stands and responsibility for children,even marriage not being taken seriously,I certainly believe that not taking responsibility for one's action's is "wrong" as far as willfully blatant acts(mentally impaired people that's somewhat different).

 

I'm also curious if you think god heard the pleas and prayers of those being slaughtered, kidnapped, and raped? I know he gave the order, so where do the victims' grief and despair come into it?

[Joefizz]

3 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

I have been very cautious to use negative labels and namecalling. I will still refrain, but you should strongly consider how disgusting it is to believe the things you just said.

 

There is nothing....NOTHING...moral about forcing a woman to marry the man who rapes her. I honestly felt sick reading you try to rationalize that.

 

You really need to wake up. These commands are directly from your god.

that's why I said somewhat agree and that it's unfair to the woman,because the man is the wrong doer not the woman,just was speaking on the sentiment of that the guy shouldn't be allowed to just walk away from what he did to her,Jail or possible death penalty sounds more fitting though especially if the guy acts innocent afterward accepting no responsibility,because while marriage would keep the guy under constant suspicion and supervision it does sound like a reward for the guy for doing wrong.

[ag_NO_stic]

11 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

that's why I said somewhat agree and that it's unfair to the woman,because the man is the wrong doer not the woman,just was speaking on the sentiment of that the guy shouldn't be allowed to just walk away from what he did to her,Jail or possible death penalty sounds more fitting though especially if the guy acts innocent afterward accepting no responsibility,because while marriage would keep the guy under constant suspicion and supervision it does sound like a reward for the guy for doing wrong.

 

Look....take that up with god, his rules. She just better have screamed extra loud to avoid getting stoned.....also god's rules, not that he did anything to save or protect her.

[Joefizz]

14 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

I'm also curious if you think god heard the pleas and prayers of those being slaughtered, kidnapped, and raped? I know he gave the order, so where do the victims' grief and despair come into it?

Well if you are talking about Deuteronomy 20 still he gave the order to utterly leave none alive in certain cities,and for certain cities for the men of war to take all therein but he never gave an order of "rape",as for any who may have gone through what you mentioned I'm sure God heard their pleas and prayers,but he had already established what was to be done concerning certain cities,and the men were already out to war,if he changed the order then the men could get confused and lose faith in their cause.

[ag_NO_stic]

4 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

Well if you are talking about Deuteronomy 20 still he gave the order to utterly leave none alive in certain cities,and for certain cities for the men of war to take all therein but he never gave an order of "rape",as for any who may have gone through what you mentioned I'm sure God heard their pleas and prayers,but he had already established what was to be done concerning certain cities,and the men were already out to war,if he changed the order then the men could get confused and lose faith in their cause.

 

Umm....just to clarify for you, since you're still learning... A man seing a woman and "finding her fair" and "taking her as his wife" is bible speak for rape. The girl had no say and gave no consent.

 

It's like when Adam "knew" or "laid with" his wife. Errbody knows what's really happening....

[Joefizz]

1 minute ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

Umm....just to clarify for you, since you're still learning... A man seing a woman and "finding her fair" and "taking her as his wife" is bible speak rape. The girl had no say. 

 

It's like when Adam "knew" or "laid with" his wife. Errbody knows what's really happening....

That's not entirely accurate,while I get your meaning in the bible it states that a man and a woman whom are married have no power over their bodies but of each other,so both have the power to seek intimacy of a sexual nature of each other and aren't allowed to seek intimacy of a sexual nature from anyone else,so really by that basis they meet each other's sexual intimacy willingly not forcibly,though I understand that the man is to be the authority over the household,this isn't to be interpreted that he alone makes the decisions in sexual intimacy.

[Joefizz]

well gotta get some sleep I have another double shift in the morning good night everyone and it's been great discussing with you all!

[nutrichuckles93]

"Great discussing with you all!" Yes, it must be great to think yourself unaccountable for the tripe that you have written regarding women as property and the discipline of children.

 

The hoops you have to go through to justify your god's actions and words. It must be exhausting, the mental gymnastics. It's almost as if...it doesn't actually hold any salt in the real world.

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, Joefizz said:

Unchanging is referring to God's power,glory and principles,not to be interpreted that God never changes his mind,he can change his mind about an order he gives or is about to do,for example in Exodus when God was ready to destroy the Israelites after going against him and his anger being waxed hot toward them(exceedingly angry)Moses reminded him of "Why" he brought the Israelites out from Egypt,and that after going through so much to not onlu free them but keep them from being killed by pharoah,and so after Moses reasoning with him to not destroy them God repented of what he sought to do to them,this portion of the bible showing that God is open to changing his mind about things he seeks to do or have done.

 

God needs people like Moses to guide him. Check.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[knightcore]

god this thread was... a lot.

 

re: the stoning mess, Joe in the end of things you're either cherry picking what suits your needs or you're staying loyal to the lord and killing your child. stoning almost always implies death, there are very few times where it doesn't biblically. arguing the nuances of stoning and begging for god to intercede are only clouding the real point which is, as many people pointed out, that you would follow god's will.

 

also as other people have pointed out, again, there's no polite way to tell someone that you don't agree with them being gay. but you know what? go ahead and prove me wrong. tell me politely about how being gay is wrong and show me those polite verses to consider. you know the ones that don't condemn me, I'd like to see those honestly.

[♦ ficino ♦]

23 hours ago, Joefizz said:

Not really common sense can be used too to determine it is wrong.

Negative. I'm not even going to ask for an argument to establish the above statement as true.

[♦ ficino ♦]

11 hours ago, Joefizz said:

Unchanging is referring to God's power,glory and principles,not to be interpreted that God never changes his mind,he can change his mind about an order he gives or is about to do,for example in Exodus when God was ready to destroy the Israelites after going against him and his anger being waxed hot toward them(exceedingly angry)Moses reminded him of "Why" he brought the Israelites out from Egypt,and that after going through so much to not onlu free them but keep them from being killed by pharoah,and so after Moses reasoning with him to not destroy them God repented of what he sought to do to them,this portion of the bible showing that God is open to changing his mind about things he seeks to do or have done.

Sorry, Joe, but ANY change on the part of God implies that God has potentiality. But if God has potentiality, then God is subject in some way to something else. The consequence of that is that God will not exist necessarily; God could be otherwise. So say goodbye to any "proofs" of God from His necessary being.

 

You cannot even suppose that there is a succession of thoughts in God without attributing some potentiality to God. God then no longer is the metaphysical ultimate; something else is.

 

We have no reason to sign on to a religion that cannot even supply a God that is the ground of all being. There is no point messing around with a belief in a finite, struggling God. And you have made your god that way, probably without realizing it.

[bornagainathiest]

On 9/7/2017 at 1:54 AM, sdelsolray said:

 

BAA,

 

Regarding this well written explanation of evidentiary terms directed to poster Joefizz, may I suggest that you add one more "term" or concept?  That term is reliability.  Folks can agree to all your other terms regarding an evidentiary item but it still may be quite lacking in reliability.  For example, "Sam said that Sarah said that John said, 'I saw a dog walking down the street'".  The evidence may be more reliable if I interviewed John himself.  Perhaps his recollection is, "I said I thought I saw a dog walking down the street, but I wasn't sure" or "I saw a cat walking down the street, not a dog" or "I was just pulling Sarah's leg".

 

The issue here is the veracity of the truth of the matter asserted, not simply whether it is evidence.  Certain evidence is more likely less reliable than other evidence, e.g., hearsay is generally less reliable than direct testimony.  Even direct testimony is often unreliable, due primarily to the way human memory works.  Repeatable evidence is usually reliable, with some noted exceptions (e.g., optical illusions).  

 

Just a thought.

 

A good thought, sdelsolray.  Thanks.

 

However, reliability needs to be very clearly and carefully defined, when it comes what is acceptable evidence and what isn't.

You see, a great many religious people will claim (wrongly) that science isn't reliable at all.  Not even one little bit.  Our visiting Christian (Stranger) was just such a person.  He would always rely on scripture over science.  Where scripture disagreed with science, scripture was relied on.  He even told us why,  in his own simplistically naive way.  Because science keeps on changing.  If science were true, then it should be absolutely true and unchanging  - like scripture.   

 

So adding reliability to equality, rationality and consistency is a good idea, but it has to be done... carefully. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Joe,

 

Do you resolve the apparent contradiction between these two verses, by faith?

 

Exodus 32:14

So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

 

Numbers 23:19 

God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SerenelyBlue]

I would like to say, fuck you very much for coming here with your warped ideas of how to please a non existent god, because you fear hell and would genuinely like to put the fear of hell in others.

I hope you feel proud, you spineless coward.  At least we have the guts to step out of our faith and brave the world being ourselves come what may.