Are all your posts

@KellyJay said
This is you all over; you cannot answer a simple question, but you have zero issues declaring others have faults.

@KellyJay said
I don’t believe you can justify good or evil without God. You can give reasons for your prespective, you can talk about cultures. But both peoples and cultures, can move into intolerant rages, or violence, picture Germany during WW2. On top of that recent polling suggesting many people feel violence is acceptable as a solution for disagreements

For something to be good it must be good for everyone not just a select few.

@Indonesia-Phil said
Your last sentence refers; and yet you support the most divisive government administration in recent American history, which is patently not 'good for everyone', therefore by your own definition it cannot be good, and yet you support it.

@Indonesia-Phil said
In all of your dialogues with me and others on these forums, you have never once answered a 'simple question' regarding your religious beliefs, or in this context how you justify them in relation to your political opinion. You deflect, or you mumble on about something else entirely, but you never address the question being asked.

@KellyJay

[b]God cannot murder;[/i]

He dispatched bears to devour some children who had mocked one of His prophets. OK, He did not actually eat the children Himself, but He made the bears do it for Him. That's no different from a Mafioso dispatching a hitman to kill someone.

@KellyJay said
I don’t believe you can justify good or evil without God. You can give reasons for your prespective, you can talk about cultures. But both peoples and cultures, can move into intolerant rages, or violence, picture Germany during WW2. On top of that recent polling suggesting many people feel violence is acceptable as a solution for disagreements

For something to be good it must be good for everyone not just a select few.

@moonbus said
I'll take that as a 'no', there is no good (or evil) without some appeal to God.

Next question, just to make sure I have correctly understood your meaning in previous posts. Do you believe that the capability to do wrong/evil is itself a flaw, even if one in fact does no wrong/evil?

@KellyJay said
Not an appeal to God, for God created the universe, and He is good; therefore, nothing apart from Him is good. Being the source of good, if you reject that, then you are less than.

@moonbus said
Understood.

Second question? Is capacity for wrong already a flaw, even if no wrong is actually committed?

@KellyJay said
The capacity for doing wrong is not by itself guilt; doing wrong is. Think of it like this: a strong, powerful warrior is quite capable of extreme violence and can be called gentile and friendly, because the warrior is strength and ability constrained, quite capable but totally under control. A man who isn’t strong and capable is not constrained; he is incapable of extreme ...[text shortened]... it if the situation reveals itself, the other would not, no matter what, do you see the difference?

@moonbus said
Why can't both men just have relations with her, if she wants both? I see nothing wrong with polyamory, so long as no one is deceived about the triangle.

Of course, people may have different reasons/excuses for not doing something they know to be wrong, and these may be moral reasons or mere psychological excuses. As H.L. Mencken said:

"The difference between a moral m ...[text shortened]... 'yes' or 'no' to either question, I would be validating presuppositions to which I do not subscribe.

@KellyJay said
If one or both is adultery or fornaction we go back to the rules being no different for one than all. With God there isn’t every man gets to do what is right in there own lives. This is no different for us all being heterosexual doesn’t automatically make one sinless any more that being gay makes one a sinner. Our drives don’t mean we are sinners it how we handle them.

@moonbus said
There are now and have been in times past cultures in which more than two genders were recognised, and in which polyandry and polygamy were recognized.

In times past, arranged marriages were political alliances between powerful families to keep property and power under control. For love, one took a 'lover' or paramour (i.e., socially sanctioned sex outside of marria ...[text shortened]... omosexual was something one did not what one is.

One set of rules does not fit all.

@KellyJay said
As I told you cultures can go off the deep end just like individuals and people are now in groups get treated as objects to be plundered and destroyed. If you attempt to use cultures as a pointer towards good doesn’t that mean your compus has no idea where good is?

@moonbus said
On the contrary. It simply means that values, including what is considered "good" and "right & proper", evolve over time, the same way languages do. Words gradually change their meanings, and so to do values. In my parents' day, "monogamy" meant one marriage for life; "digamy" meant taking another spouse after the first one. Now, hardly anyone even knows what "digamy" means ...[text shortened]... a better society, by abolishing slavery and witch trials, by empowering women's suffrage, and so on.