Evil?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Since there are no moral absolutes I guess any lie is morally acceptable as long as you can rationalize it.

We discussed lying and the moral issues it raises before. My stance hasn't changed.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Since there are no moral absolutes I guess any lie is morally acceptable as long as you can rationalize it. I guess that really applies to any action.

"Any action"? For example?

Originally posted by @fmf
We discussed lying and the moral issues it raises before. My stance hasn't changed.

Of course since you have discussed 'lying' before any question I ask you remotely relating to lying could have you rationalizing that you answered the question before even if I have never asked it before.

Originally posted by @fmf
"Any action"? For example?

Anything I believe is always wrong you could rationalize since you believe no action is ever always wrong.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Of course since you have discussed 'lying' before any question I ask you remotely relating to lying could have you rationalizing that you answered the question before even if I have never asked it before.

But we have discussed lying before. You're just asking about the same things again and again and again. I am happy with how I explained my stance before. I seem to recall you just blanked it out. You are not adding anything new with your repetition.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Anything I believe is always wrong you could rationalize since you believe no action is ever always wrong.

Give me some scenarios that are different from the ones you gave me before (which I addressed head on, but you just ignored my responses) and I'll give you my moral analysis.

Originally posted by @fmf
But we have discussed lying before. You're just asking about the same things again and again and again. I am happy with how I explained my stance before. I seem to recall you just blanked it out. You are not adding anything new with your repetition.

The fact that we have discussed lying before doesn't mean we have discussed this specific question that I just asked you. You obviously don't seem comfortable discussing it.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The fact that we have discussed lying before doesn't mean we have discussed this specific question that I just asked you. You obviously don't seem comfortable discussing it.

What I said before about the morality of lying applies now too.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Indeed. It seems lying to get out of a tight spot doesn't bother you in the least.

[1] I have never lied to you, [2] if I were to lie to you, it would only happen within the moral parameters I explained before (although you chose to ignore it at the time and retorted with non-responsive, deflecting questions instead).

You should refer to that, if you can find it. There may have been 2-3 occasions when I offered my analysis on deception. You might come across them if you go looking.

Your accusations that I am lying are water off the proverbial duck's back.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
No that's what acts 5:29 means.

But Peter and the other apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than men."

So if men expect you to break God's law, obey God's law. I'm surprised you missed this bit over the decades of your Christianity.

The funny part is men are telling other men what god wants.

If god wants something from me, let it tell me itself, humans telling me about god, forget it.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Anything I believe is always wrong you could rationalize since you believe no action is ever always wrong.

We will even forgive your god for the flood, if his reasons stand up.