Biggest Lie You've Been Told

[Yakuda]

15 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Is there an atheistic reason to have social disruption?

I always thought atheism was an answer to a question about belief in gods.   Why would you think atheism has tenets, or prescribes views on social interaction?

There may well be and just because neither you nor I can conceive of one doesn't mean there isn't one. The point remains there is no atheistic reason to follow the rules. 

It's an answer to that question like "Green" is an answer to, "What time is it?"

Real atheism certainly makes the truth claim, there is no God which gives rise to moral relativism. Humanism springs forth from real atheism. 

[TreeBeard]

4 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Real atheism certainly makes the truth claim, there is no God

So the ones who say “I don’t believe your evidence that there’s a god” are fake atheists?   

 

4 hours ago, Yakuda said:

…gives rise to moral relativism.

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?

4 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Humanism springs forth from real atheism. 

What’s wrong with Secular Humanism?  Do you have to be an atheist to practice it?  

[Yakuda]

33 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

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?  

 No a real atheist has the fortitude to say there is no God. That I respect. The "not enough evidence" will never believe any evidence for God. They're just playing pretend. 

You're really confused. God did resolve everything but mistake is the belief that everyone must abide otherwise it's not true. If you think the world is flat that doesn't make the world flat. You get that, right? 

Cite from a source other than your head that God was for killing gays. 

I just demonstrated that 

[TreeBeard]

19 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

No a real atheist has the fortitude to say there is no God.  That I respect.

That just tells me what you prefer.   Isn’t someone who says “I don’t believe in any gods” an atheist as well?

 

23 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

The "not enough evidence" will never believe any evidence for God. They're just playing pretend. 

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. 
 

28 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Cite from a source other than your head that God was for killing gays. 

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.“

30 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

God did resolve everything

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. 
 

[Yakuda]

24 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

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. 
 

Again my problem isn't with real atheist, there is no God or any god(s). I lack respect for the, "there isn't enough evidence" atheist. That's a weasel not an atheist. 

Yes thats how we do it but anyone not convicted either way by the current evidence won't be convicted with more evidence. It's a lie they try to convince themselves of by saying it to others. They aren't serious.  

Of course I have but now you're changing what you said previously.  But to your new point 

Ezekiel 18:24 

"But if the righteous turn away from their virtuous ways to follow the path of evil and do the same kind of abominable deeds that the wicked do, can they do this and live? None of their virtuous deeds will be remembered. Because of their infidelity and the sins they committed they shall die". 

I guess gays should get special treatment from God like they get from the govt right? 

Edited February 1, 2024 by Yakuda

[TreeBeard]

13 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

I guess gays should get special treatment from God like they get from the govt right? 

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.  

[Yakuda]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

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.  

Should anyone be put to death? Sin causes death though. Gays are special. You initially said God was for killing gays. He isn't. Your scripture reference refers to sin no the people commjtting the sin. I also showed you that death from sin isnt restricted to gays like you claimed. 

So is yours. So what? I'll think about it. 

 

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

Your scripture reference refers to sin no the people commjtting the sin

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

[Yakuda]

9 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

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

No it's a very significant difference. It's not literal death but sin does cause death. 

You initially said God was for killing gays. You're either wrong or a liar. Which is it?

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

No it's a very significant difference. It's not literal death but sin does cause death. 

You initially said God was for killing gays. You're either wrong or a liar. Which is it?

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

Edited February 1, 2024 by TreeBeard

[Yakuda]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

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

The acts not the person just like the abominably deeds mentioned in Ezekiel. You initially said God is for the death of gays. AGAIN that's a lie for a mistake on your part 

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

The acts not the person just like the abominably deeds mentioned in Ezekiel. You initially said God is for the death of gays. AGAIN that's a lie for a mistake on your part 

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? 

[Yakuda]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

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? 

Yes just like any other abominable act AKA sin as mentioned in Ezekiel 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2024 by Yakuda

[TreeBeard]

12 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Yes just like any other abominable act AKA sin as mentioned in Ezekiel 

 

 

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

[Yakuda]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

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

No but literal death isnt the point. God told adam and even they would "...surely die" but they didnt literally die when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil but they did suffer a death 

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

No but literal death isnt the point. God told adam and even they would "...surely die" but they didnt literally die when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil but they did suffer a death 

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

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

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

Sure Leviticus says lots of people should be put to death for lots of sins.

Just now, Yakuda said:

Sure Leviticus says people should be put to death for a myriad of sins. 

 

[TreeBeard]

7 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Sure Leviticus says lots of people should be put to death for lots of sins.

 

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

Edited February 1, 2024 by TreeBeard

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

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

Where have i said killing was a morally good act? You're really confused now. 

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

Where have i said killing was a morally good act? You're really confused now. 

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

Edited February 1, 2024 by TreeBeard

[Yakuda]

7 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

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

I dont know but God can do as he wishes and those rules were superceded by new covenant established with Jesus 

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

I dont know but God can do as he wishes and those rules were superceded by new covenant established with Jesus 

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?     

[Yakuda]

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

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?     

I said God can do as he wills. We don't follow Jewish law. There is a new covenant. All sinful behavior is deadly to the soul. 

[TreeBeard]

3 hours ago, Yakuda said:

I said God can do as he wills. We don't follow Jewish law. There is a new covenant. All sinful behavior is deadly to the soul. 

Was it morally permissible for a Jew at the time to kill people who engaged in those acts?

It’s not a trick question….

[Yakuda]

7 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Was it morally permissible for a Jew at the time to kill people who engaged in those acts?

It’s not a trick question….

I already said, I don't know. Today we live under new covenant with Jesus.