19 Oct '17 14:18>
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWe discussed lying and the moral issues it raises before. My stance hasn't changed.
Since there are no moral absolutes I guess any lie is morally acceptable as long as you can rationalize it.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWe discussed lying and the moral issues it raises before. My stance hasn't changed.
Since there are no moral absolutes I guess any lie is morally acceptable as long as you can rationalize it.
Originally posted by @dj2becker"Any action"? For example?
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.
Originally posted by @fmfOf 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.
We discussed lying and the moral issues it raises before. My stance hasn't changed.
Originally posted by @fmfAnything I believe is always wrong you could rationalize since you believe no action is ever always wrong.
"Any action"? For example?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerBut 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.
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 @dj2beckerGive 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.
Anything I believe is always wrong you could rationalize since you believe no action is ever always wrong.
Originally posted by @fmfThe 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.
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 @dj2beckerWhat I said before about the morality of lying applies now too.
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[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).
Indeed. It seems lying to get out of a tight spot doesn't bother you in the least.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerThe funny part is men are telling other men what god wants.
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.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWe will even forgive your god for the flood, if his reasons stand up.
Anything I believe is always wrong you could rationalize since you believe no action is ever always wrong.