FMF,
If the bible tells in:
King James Version
=============
The Revelation 4: 11
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
Who is it that can say. . .humans are and were not created for "the Lord" as well?
All your disagreement with any human being on this earth profits you nothing. We are not your Judge. You have your soul in your own hands. You are wasting your time disagreeing with us. Value your own soul or don't value it. It is all up to you. The bible tells that God wishes that all come to repentance.
2 Peter 3: 9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Internet Source
-----------------
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/search.php?q=should perish&bsec=N&order=
Originally posted by KingOnPointEven 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.
If your Christianity and subscription to ancient Hebrew mythology are all that stand between you and an animal-like "kill and let kill" moral compass [or it's the only thing stopping you from deliberately infecting someone with HIV], then good for you and good for those around you whom you might harm. I welcome your morally-sound behaviour if that is indeed what it is, but I am unconcerned by the nuts and bolts of the psychological mechanics of how you arrive at that, and whether or not you superstitiously feel you are transgressing the will of a God figure that you happen to believe in.
Originally posted by KingOnPointBut why are you not directing the exhortation "Christians are not to be unloving to people" at Christians? What inhibits you?
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.
FMF Sent
=========
If your Christianity and subscription to ancient Hebrew mythology are all that stand between you and an animal-like "kill and let kill" moral compass [or it's the only thing stopping you from deliberately infecting someone with HIV], then good for you and good for those around you whom you might harm. I welcome your morally-sound behaviour if that is indeed what it is,
=========
Without God, there is no morality. Without God, there is no sin either.
Originally posted by KingOnPointThat is why atheist attempt to eliminate God with billions of years of evil-lution.
FMF Sent
=========
If your Christianity and subscription to ancient Hebrew mythology are all that stand between you and an animal-like "kill and let kill" moral compass [or it's the only thing stopping you from deliberately infecting someone with HIV], then good for you and good for those around you whom you might harm. I welcome your morally-sound beh ...[text shortened]... at it is,
=========
Without God, there is no morality. Without God, there is no sin either.
Originally posted by FMFIt was made solely and exclusively with reference to homosexual men living in the UK who had contracted HIV as a result of their immoral and unhealthy life choices. Whether it can by extension be applied to any other set, remains to be seen.
So does your argument about behaviour with inherent health risks being immoral behaviour only apply to homosexual men in the UK? Not to any other groups, or any other risks, not any other circumstances?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCan you think of any other unhealthy 'activity' which you would deem 'morally reprehensible'?
It was made solely and exclusively with reference to homosexual men living in the UK who had contracted HIV as a result of their immoral and unhealthy life choices. Whether it can by extension be applied to any other set, remains to be seen.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo it's only the choices made homosexual men who have contracted HIV that you are declaring immoral? Is this not a shift from your stance earlier on this thread when you were declaring ALL homosexual acts immoral?
It was made solely and exclusively with reference to homosexual men living in the UK who had contracted HIV as a result of their immoral and unhealthy life choices.
