TreeBeard

Now you’re splitting hairs…. So should people who commit the sin be put to death?

It does make it necessary though, correct? What would God do about it? Is there punishment awaiting? If it’s not right, then I should let the child starve? Isnt this a case of situational ethics? The situation determines whether something is right or wrong. Not the biblical commandment “thou shalt not steal”. Where is your biblical objective morality now? You admit to breaking commandments in certain situations. You’re now a secular humanist!

Equal treatment. Do you think they should be put to death? Your post is pretty nonsensical, as I can’t tell what questions you’re answering. Maybe use the quote function. Or number them like @Michael Hardner does.

We agree! No “higher power” needed if its instinctive, correct? Wouldn’t that make it right then? Would you steal bread to feed a starving child?

One’s source and assessment of truth can make one suspicious to others. Are you anti-vax and believe in conspiracies about vaccines?

That just tells me what you prefer. Isn’t someone who says “I don’t believe in any gods” an atheist as well? Isn't that how we assess most claims? Once there is sufficient evidence for a claim, then people believe it. People didn’t believe the Earth revolved around the sun until there was evidence. You’ve never read Leviticus? It has all sorts of immoral punishments for things that we wouldn’t even consider crimes today. When did God change his mind about that? And why? Leviticus 20:13 New Living Translation 13 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.“ You’re confused about my claim. The bible doesn’t resolve the issue of objective morality if it changes, or if its adherents all have different opinions on moral questions, which they can both cite passages from the bible to justify. If the Pope can come out with a new decree about gay people, changing how Catholics behave, then there was never any objective morality in the bible. It’s still just opinion.

Hope springs eternal with you!

Can facts ever be in dispute and debated?

Hmmm…. Won’t they fit right in on this forum?

Oh, there are nuances now? Maybe that’s why, as I said, slogans are weak-sauce. Simple words for simple minds. Thou shalt not kill…. Well, except for soldiers…. and police…. and self defence…. and…. and…. Sloganeering doesn’t resolve anything.

Satan? LOL Was that an insult? 😈

Your slogan was “killing isn’t healthcare” and it was a fact. I gave a scenario where killing was healthcare. Just change your slogan.

You’re making that up. Mental incapacity to make decisions for oneself will not meet the criteria.

Pulling the plug on life support will kill someone, correct?

They are both killing. Your slogan failed. Find a new slogan.

Is it really that difficult to grasp the difference? One is a right. The other is a violation of rights. Despite your bogeyman hypothetical scenarios, it’s an individual right under our Charter. It goes against our Charter for the state to kill prisoners.

Clearly it isn’t factual at all as hospitals and doctors all over the world end people’s lives. Even you would end a life by pulling the plug on life support if there was no chance of recovery. So, yes…. Killing is clearly healthcare.

So the ones who say “I don’t believe your evidence that there’s a god” are fake atheists? Does it? How does a god solve that? Does every Catholic believe the same things are moral/immoral, or is there a difference of opinion amongst people? If there are different opinions, then your god didn’t resolve anything. God was for killing gays and now He’s not, evidently. How is that objective if He can just change His mind? What’s wrong with Secular Humanism? Do you have to be an atheist to practice it?

OK. Who else is qualified to do so? Should they be asking their local church? Butcher? Candlestick maker?

And slogans never solved an issue.

Individuals decide if they want to die. Doctors determine if they’re eligible for assistance to do so give specific criteria. Aren’t you the one who says the Pope was sent by the devil to infiltrate the church, or something like that?

MAID isn’t playing God then either. It’s end of life compassionate care.

I find the ones that don’t usually have the best morals. We don’t “hand out” MAID. People choose it. If you don’t want it, then don’t choose it.

I think the United Church supports MAID. They seem to be the best of the Christians in a lot of ways. Women ministers, gay marriage, etc.

@blackbird does favour the death penalty. The question I have for @blackbird is if he thinks the death penalty should be handed out for children who strike their parents, like the bible advocates. If Genesis is good enough to establish the death penalty for murder, why isn’t Exodus reason for the other death penalties. He cherry picks the bible with reasons like Exodus not being the law of God any longer since the sacrifice of Jesus. But then it begs the question of the morality of killing someone for being gay, or someone who strikes their parents How was it moral then, but wouldn’t be now. This nullifies the argument that Christian morality is objective if the rules can just change. More questions than answers in that bible!