1 edit
@KellyJay
I didn't say anything about "shades of gray." I said the terms (right, just, righteous, etc.) need to be defined before we can say that anyone (anyone) acts according to those criteria – i.e. what is right or just or righteous. (And I suggested that those definitions themselves would likely by subject to argument -- at least I suspect that would be the case.)
I think the questions in the OP are good questions, and not easy questions. I think that for a perpetrator of some (otherwise unjustified, whatever that might mean) harm – murder was your example (rape would be another) – to “get off” just because they appeal to the mercy of “the court,” while the victim is punished just because they don’t … Well, I don’t see how that could be considered to be right or just, under any reasonable definitions that I can think of. Do you?
@vistesd2 saidThe discursive elephant in the room is that KellyJay believes that not subscribing to the same religious views as he has is a "crime". So, in KellyJay's world, there's [1] murder [2] rape and [3] a lack of belief in Jesus. I have found it nigh on impossible to discuss morality and justice with him.
I think that for a perpetrator of some (otherwise unjustified, whatever that might mean) harm – murder was your example (rape would be another) – to “get off” just because they appeal to the mercy of “the court,” while the victim is punished just because they don’t … Well, I don’t see how that could be considered to be right or just, under any reasonable definitions that I can think of. Do you?
@fmf saidYou apply your personal opinion to everyone else while dismissing theirs because they only have their opinion, yes I have listened to you. You are the only standard you go by which more than likely is why you reject God’s who unlike all of us is the standard for good and righteousness.
I have a moral compass too. It's not just "others" who have one. Gosh. Have you not understood anything I have ever said about this?
1 edit
@vistesd2 saidIf each of us defines right, just, and righteousness, they are broken terms that are
@KellyJay
I didn't say anything about "shades of gray." I said the terms (right, just, righteous, etc.) need to be defined before we can say that anyone (anyone) acts according to those criteria – i.e. what is right or just or righteous. (And I suggested that those definitions themselves would likely by subject to argument -- at least I suspect that would be the c ...[text shortened]... ld be considered to be right or just, under any reasonable definitions that I can think of. Do you?
nothing more than opinions; they are not like that. They don't change with the
person, with the more intellectual argument over others. I would say that they
point something greater, because from time to time where conflict between them
arises when choices are made that are not a rule of direction like what is right or
wrong that is something above them all, a holy scale that directs the proper way
to go, personally.
@fmf saidSo you say, again, your opinion, and you constantly misrepresent my point as you
The discursive elephant in the room is that KellyJay believes that not subscribing to the same religious views as he has is a "crime". So, in KellyJay's world, there's [1] murder [2] rape and [3] a lack of belief in Jesus. I have found it nigh on impossible to discuss morality and justice with him.
do now. You reject Christ in the flesh, and you claim you once believed in Him;
you now reject Christ. The reality of Christ in you never occurred; if it had, you
couldn't deny His reality as you do now.
You forever leave God out of the equation as if He is an afterthought, a point of
discussion only, not the prime reality in whom we live and have our being. So you
make all about us, all about our personal opinions. Such is your anti-Christ stance.
Many agree with many of the things I believe that does not save them; if they
don't know the Savior Jesus Christ agreeing with me is completely meaningless
@kellyjay saidI do not leave your God figure, or your belief in him, out of the equation. It's virtually all we talk about. What more than "a point of discussion" can your particular God figure between us?
You forever leave God out of the equation as if He is an afterthought, a point of
discussion only, not the prime reality in whom we live and have our being.
@kellyjay saidMany agree with many of the things I believe that does not save them; if theyYour assertions about someone who has been stone dead for 2,000 years, and your misanthropy/ threats/warnings attendant thereto, are pretty much "meaningless" to non-believers, KellyJay, aside from the fact that the subjective nature of your claims is "a point of discussion".
don't know the Savior Jesus Christ agreeing with me is completely meaningless