10 Sep 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @dj2beckerhttps://www.newsweek.com/gay-dolphins-australia-homosexual-behavior-645360
If someone wrote it in wikipedia it must be true... Do you have any references to scientific journals?
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals
Or read this:
Homosexual Behaviour in Animals: An Evolutionary Perspective
10 Sep 18
Originally posted by @philokalia
If there is not an objective standard for what is moral and what is immoral, how could anyone be immoral?
Reply by @divegeester
Let’s assume there is an objective moral standard, does it include burning people alive as being morally acceptable?
2nd. bump for philokalia
Originally posted by @secondsonYou lost this debate just as you did the one you are now resurrecting.
You are deflecting.
You lost this debate just as you did the one you are now resurrecting.
All you're doing is cherry picking three verses out of context to support you dogmatic and narrow minded perspective without regard for both the context of the chapter in question and the cultural history of the era.
Your arguments are as bogus as you are.
Like many Christians, you seem to think that things are true just because you believe them. You make vacuous assertions that cannot prove.
All you're doing is cherry picking three verses out of context to support you dogmatic and narrow minded perspective without regard for both the context of the chapter in question and the cultural history of the era.
Here's a chance to prove me wrong:
1) By all means, formulate a cogent argument that details exactly how verses surrounding Leviticus 25:44-46 indicate that I took them out of context to change the meaning.
2) By all means, formulate a cogent argument that details exactly how the cultural history of the era changes the meaning of Leviticus 25:44-46.
The fact remains that fact that God clearly, explicitly and unambiguously condoned chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46.
Your assertion that you do not use the Bible to create a morality based on your own selfish interpretations and definitions of it is false and your denial of what Leviticus 25:44-46 proves it. You believe chattel slavery is wrong but deny what God clearly states there.
Originally posted by @philokaliaNo that’s not what I’m asking you, and well you know it.
Dive, are you asking if I think hell exists? The answer is yes.
For the fourth time, here is what you said:
Originally posted by @philokalia
If there is not an objective standard for what is moral and what is immoral, how could anyone be immoral?
Here is my reply which you are avoiding three times now:
Reply by @divegeester
Let’s assume there is an objective moral standard, does it include burning people alive as being morally acceptable?
Clearly, obviously, blatantly. I’m not asking you if hell exists.
Are you going to dodge the question again?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @divegeesterAnd the question you've been dodging is this one:
No that’s not what I’m asking you, and well you know it.
For the fourth time, here is what you said:
Originally posted by @philokalia
[b]If there is not an objective standard for what is moral and what is immoral, how could anyone be immoral?
Here is my reply which you are avoiding three times now:
Reply by @divegeester ...[text shortened]... usly, blatantly. I’m not asking you if hell exists.
Are you going to dodge the question again?[/b]
If there is not an objective standard for what is moral and what is immoral, how could anyone be immoral?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerAs I have pointed out to you before, immorality is a secular and therefore relative concept.
And the question you've been dodging is this one:
If there is not an objective standard for what is moral and what is immoral, how could anyone be immoral?
FMF has explained this to you over hundreds and hundreds of posts in dozens of threads when you were both dj2becker and your trolling countrpart Fetchmyjunk. I suggest you go back and read those threads instead of coming back and asking people the same questions again and again and again and again.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
11 Sep 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterPhilo asked you the question.
As I have pointed out to you before, immorality is a secular and therefore relative concept.
FMF has explained this to you over hundreds and hundreds of posts in dozens of threads when you were both dj2becker and your trolling countrpart Fetchmyjunk. I suggest you go back and read those threads instead of coming back and asking people the same questions again and again and again and again.
You can use the word 'sinful' instead then. Is 'sin' relative as well?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerBut it is YOU who asking it now, right!
You can use the word 'sinful' instead then. Is 'sin' relative as well?
Yes actually it is. Try occasionally reading the Bible without your “I’ve got it all right” hat on.
James 4:17
If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.
Yes some aspects of sin are relative. You are wrong Daniel.
Morality is not a biblical concept
And sin is relative.
11 Sep 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerDo you think philokalia will answer my question now or will he hide again, what do you reckon?
Philo asked you the question.
You can use the word 'sinful' instead then. Is 'sin' relative as well?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @divegeesterTry occasionally reading the Bible without your “I’ve got it all right” hat on.
But it is YOU who asking it now, right!
Yes actually it is. Try occasionally reading the Bible without your “I’ve got it all right” hat on.
James 4:17
If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for [b]them.
Yes some aspects of sin are relative. You are wrong Daniel.
Morality is not a biblical concept
And sin is relative.[/b]
Oh the irony. Don't you have your "I've got it all right" hat on? So you're saying it is not always a sin if you know the good you ought to do and don't do it? 🙄 Or is that true for everyone?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @divegeesterI reckon if you actually answer the question he asked you first he might answer yours.
Do you think philokalia will answer my question now or will he hide again, what do you reckon?
11 Sep 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerI’m just quoting James from the Bible, make of it what you will.
So you're saying it is not always a sin if you know the good you ought to do and don't do it? Or is that true for everyone?
11 Sep 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerI’ve just answered it.
I reckon if you actually answer the question he asked you first he might answer yours.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @divegeesterDoes the book of James apply only to believers? If you were a non-believer do you think it wouldn't apply to you?
I’m just quoting James from the Bible, make of it what you will.