TreeBeard

That’s an answer to whether it was moral to kill those people back then? Really??

I’m going to guess that the poster will give the weird response of “Jesus’ body”. That’s a common one. And completely bizarre.

It was in Africa before it was in North America. South America is also full of Christians. The ones immigrating to USA, legally or illegally, are overwhelmingly Christian. So being white is the important part to you. Stop pretending it’s not. Embrace the race! They believe in Moses…. Jesus is one of their prophets. Yup. Definitely as much a branch of those religions as Christianity is of Judaism.

None of those are countries. Africa is full of Christians. Europe is not a country. There are also parts that are much more secular than here. And the ones that aren’t secular are Catholic! Should we make sure we bring more Catholics to Canada? Maybe stop saying it is then. Maybe use the word “Canadian” instead of “Caucasian”. Islam is as much “Judeo” as Christianity is.

Why is it important that the babies are white? Are my Chinese-coloured Canadian friends less Canadian than white people?

I wasn’t asking you to judge God. I asked about people. Can you see how I think this is a bit of a cop-out when you judge what people do all the time? Was it wrong for people to kill? ”I won’t judge God” Is abortion wrong? ”Of course it is”

They were very willing to discuss and stayed on topic. No name calling or …. Well, there was a little name calling on their part…. But it is an interesting topic! They would defy the word of their God and do something “wrong” for the greater good. Situational ethics in a nutshell. Objective morality was set aside.

Was killing them moral? I can’t believe it is such a difficult question! Quick! Change the topic to abortion!

So people should still be killed for homosexual acts? Or did that change?

God changes His mind…. His morality is no more objective than ours! And the fact that you don’t know if killing people for that reason is moral or immoral is rather sad. This is what religion does to one’s sense of right and wrong.

Was it morally permissible for a Jew at the time to kill people who engaged in those acts? It’s not a trick question….

Do people not remember Trump was president through most of COVID? lol Yes, they won’t alienate their fan base by embracing this concept, ala Bud Lime (or whatever the trans beer is), but they sure do love what Swift brings in terms of an increased audience! ”Shut up and sing” is still a conservative slogan when it comes to women entertainers.

You don’t know if it was morally permissible for people to carry out punishments God prescribed in the bible? If God ordered it, how could it ever be immoral to do it? Wouldn’t it be morally permissible by definition? Did God order it but sent people to hell for carrying it out?

There is no discernible difference between “it’s not right, but you should do it anyway and you will be forgiven and not punished” and “it’s the right thing to do based on the circumstances”. Clearly, you are arguing over semantics, unless you can provide the actual difference. Saying I lack understanding, or need to find wisdom, or other nonsense you state trying to distract from the point, or get you out of actually having to justify your reasoning isn’t good enough.

God commanded those people be put to death. Was it a morally good act to kill them as God commanded back in those days?

So was it a morally good act to kill them for those sins back then?

Except, God was describing a literal death as punishment for those acts in Leviticus, correct?

Do you think people should be killed if they perform those acts?

Exactly. Same reason I would. That’s situational ethics and is completely counter to biblical objective morality. What better describes the scenario we just worked through? Did you follow biblical objective morality, (thou shalt not steal) or did you switch to situational ethics (got to save the child)? In situation ethics, right and wrong depend upon the situation. There are no universal moral rules or rights - each case is unique and deserves a unique solution. Situation ethics rejects 'prefabricated decisions and prescriptive rules'.

If stealing in that situation isn’t right, why would you do it?

Fine, a mistake on my part. I have since corrected it to homosexual sex acts. Does Leviticus say the punishment for homosexual sex acts is death?

LOL Maybe just answer the question? You changed the scenario from saving a child to “excusing crappy behaviour “. And pretending you can read my emotions through a computer screen. Thats you not discussing honestly. Is it legitimate to steal bread to save a starving child for the greater good?

Does Leviticus say the punishment for homosexual sex acts is death?

Of course it is! It’s semantics. Is it better to steal bread to save the child, or to watch the child die? You’ve already answered…. So is it really objectively wrong to steal? A yes answer would be cognitive dissonance if you would steal in certain situations for the greater good! Isn’t it legitimate to steal bread to save a starving child? You said it was 3 posts ago….

That’s called situational ethics and is a tenet of secular humanism. You saying “it’s wrong but forgivable” is just another way of saying it’s not actually wrong! LOL If you want to play semantic games to say that the scenario is “wrong but forgivable” then I’m fine with that. I will agree. It’s wrong, but it’s completely forgivable. So…. where did your objective morality disappear to?