Originally posted by KellyJayThe discussion is about whether behaviour with inherent health risks is immoral behaviour.
So what you are doing here is just attempting to pour salt into someone's
wounds, because they have faults you want to remind them about even
though you too have them?
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo its not, there may be underlying reasons, depression, lack of self esteem, boredom, your attempts to simplify the issue are scurrilous!
People become obese by eating too much food. It's a simple as that. Any claims to the contrary are nonsense.
Originally posted by FMFMany scholars have already concluded that FMF's disquisitions are highly crass. Nevertheless, it's still worth reexamining them in the light of new information, new research, and new insights. Doing so is sure to reveal that FMF always looks the other way when one of his apple-polishers gets it in his head to threaten, degrade, poison, bulldoze, and kill this world of ours. Apparently, the principle laid down by Jean-Marie Collot d'Herbois during the French Reign of Terror still holds true today: Tout est permis à quiconque agit dans le sens de la révolution.
The discussion is about whether behaviour with inherent health risks is immoral behaviour.
I myself want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to investigate FMF's sniveling principles, ideals, and objectives. If FMF's acrasial fulminations became more widespread, it would spell the ruination of this country. FMF asserts that criminals are merely social rebels. I, however, aver that that's a load of crud. Yes, he has been, still is, and always will remain more distasteful than temperamental hooligans, but if he gets his way, I might very well cry. I suppose that's all I have to say in this letter. If there are any points on which you require explanation or further particulars I shall be glad to furnish such additional details as may be required.
http://www.pakin.org/complaint
complaint generator
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobieas being pregnant is statistically way more dangerous to human life than hiv, are you going to condemn having children? if not why?
No its not, there may be underlying reasons, depression, lack of self esteem, boredom, your attempts to simplify the issue are scurrilous!
Originally posted by KellyJayNo. This a discussion, as FMF has said above, about Roberts claim that wilfully engaging in a practice which is known to be unhealthy is morally reprehensible. What's your take on this claim Kelly?
So what you are doing here is just attempting to pour salt into someone's
wounds, because they have faults you want to remind them about even
though you too have them?
Originally posted by FMFI don't suppose you'd like to actually answer the question? I mean, since you yourself routinely badger people who don't answer yours?
The discussion is about whether behaviour with inherent health risks is immoral behaviour.
Edit: Pardon me, the question seems to have been aimed at Proper Knob. Mea culpa.
Originally posted by Proper KnobMy take on this is we are all sinners, and those throwing rocks at another,
No. This a discussion, as FMF has said above, about Roberts claim that wilfully engaging in a practice which is known to be unhealthy is morally reprehensible. What's your take on this claim Kelly?
well they are as bad or worse in their own little world. Some here just
don't let up, they simply attack, and don't care how they do it. I do not
count you among those by the way if you were wondering, but you really
do deliver some really nice shots from time to time. 🙂
Originally posted by Proper KnobI think we all have sins that trip us up, those we do and know we should
No. This a discussion, as FMF has said above, about Roberts claim that wilfully engaging in a practice which is known to be unhealthy is morally reprehensible. What's your take on this claim Kelly?
not. They are not healthy, and they can be morally reprehensible. Anything
not done in faith can be harmful to one's health in my opinion, because it
eats at the one doing it. We can even with everything we have try to
justify that which we know is wrong, that too will eat at us and do us harm
since as I said we know it is wrong and we are doing it.
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is your take on what is morally sound and morally unsound when it comes to behaviour that has inherent health risks?
My take on this is we are all sinners, and those throwing rocks at another,
well they are as bad or worse in their own little world. Some here just
don't let up, they simply attack, and don't care how they do it. I do not
count you among those by the way if you were wondering, but you really
do deliver some really nice shots from time to time. 🙂
FMF Sent:
If you genuinely believe that "Christians are not to be unloving to people [...] because Christ supported being loving" then you ought to remind Christians of this as it applies to them and not to non-Christians.
==============
The thing that the righteousness of God is for all people on the earth, not just Christians. However, for an unbeliever, keeping most of God's commands will profit no gain in eternal life. The first thing and unbeliever needs to do, is believe in Christ for salvation.
Originally posted by KingOnPointUnbelievers ~ by definition ~ do not believe in "eternal life" and do not believe there are such things as "God's commands".
However, for an unbeliever, keeping most of God's commands will profit no gain in eternal life.
But of course, you're dodging. My question was: Why are you directing your "Christians are not to be unloving to people [...] because Christ supported being loving" advice at me ~ a non-Christian ~ rather than the Christians at which it ought to be directed?
FMF Sent:
-----------------
Having no religious beliefs relating to them, I have no reason to see homosexuality or homosexual acts as being inherently morally unsound. I feel under no pressure whatsoever to condemn homosexuality so I do not see myself as "refusing" to condemn it.
Heterosexual acts also lead to the spreading of diseases but I am not going to condemn heterosexual acts as morally unsound. Spreading diseases knowingly or recklessly by either homosexuals or heterosexuals, however, I do condemn as being morally objectionable.
-----------------
Even if you think that purposefully infecting someone else is morally objectionable, what does that matter if there is no God. If there is no One to answer to, then what difference does it make what you think about what is "morally objectionable?" Your personal value to the infection is irrelevant. If there is no God to answer to, then no person's values have any value for anyone else. If there is no God, then everyone can do what they want to do and no other human's values should be imposed on them.
If there is no God, then it isn't up to us to determine the "objectionableness" of another. In that case, "live and let live" is just fine. And in that case, likewise, "kill and let kill" is just fine. Animals are a good example of that last statement.
It is God who determines what He wants from us, not me and not you.
FMF Sent:
-----------------
But of course, you're dodging. My question was: Why are you directing your "Christians are not to be unloving to people [...] because Christ supported being loving" advice at me ~ a non-Christian ~ rather than the Christians at which it ought to be directed?
-----------------
FMF,
God's commands are as much for you to keep as it is for Christians to keep. God's commands are for all of humanity. No One is excluded.