Biggest Lie You've Been Told

[TreeBeard]

3 hours ago, Yakuda said:

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

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.  

Edited February 2, 2024 by TreeBeard

[Yakuda]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

God changes His mind….  His morality is no more objective than ours!  

Not the case at all. 

[TreeBeard]

Just now, Yakuda said:

Not the case at all. 

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

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

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.  

This is a great example of the confusion people like you have and normally people are hesitant to express their ignorance but I've found that's not the case when it comes to this topic. 

[Yakuda]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

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

For at least the 5th time now sin causes death. In the OT it was physical death but the new and final covenant with Jesus tells us that sin kills our souls which is as good as physical deaths. Now killing babies is considered a "right". That's the result of a dead soul. 

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

For at least the 5th time now sin causes death. In the OT it was physical death but the new and final covenant with Jesus tells us that sin kills our souls which is as good as physical deaths. Now killing babies is considered a "right". That's the result of a dead soul. 

Was killing them moral?  I can’t believe it is such a difficult question!  
 

Quick!  Change the topic to abortion! 

 

 

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Was killing them moral?  I can’t believe it is such a difficult question!  
 

Quick!  Change the topic to abortion! 

 

 

You're asking me to judge Gods will, I'm responsible for my will. He can do as he wills I can't. 

I mentioned baby killing only to highlight the side effect of your mentality not to change the subject. It's right on subject. 

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

You're asking me to judge Gods will, I'm responsible for my will. He can do as he wills I can't

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”

[Yakuda]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

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”

We know what Jesus thought of the law. He didn't follow the rules of the  sabbath or ritual cleansing before meals. We know too in John 8:7 what Jesus thought of the law. He didn't deny it nor change it. 

[TreeBeard]

Just now, Yakuda said:

We know what Jesus thought of the law. He didn't follow the rules of the  sabbath or ritual cleansing before meals. We know too in John 8:7 what Jesus thought of the law. He didn't deny it nor change it. 

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

[Yakuda]

9 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

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

I gave you the answer God can do as he wills. That has no bearing on what's moral or immoral for me. I said this to you from the beginning, it's always immoral to kill even if you think you have a good enough reason to do it. An immoral thing is not made good by your intentions. Your intentions will however decide your punishment. 

Edited February 2, 2024 by Yakuda

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

God can do as he wills. That has no bearing on what's moral or immoral for me.

So where do you get your morals from if it isn’t from God?  I’m pretty sure you’ve said the bible contains the basis for morality, did you not?

 

2 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

it's always immoral to kill even if you think you have a good enough reason to do it.

So when God listed those punishments in the bible for certain sinful acts, it was immoral for people to carry them out?

[Yakuda]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

So where do you get your morals from if it isn’t from God?  I’m pretty sure you’ve said the bible contains the basis for morality, did you not?

 

So when God listed those punishments in the bible for certain sinful acts, it was immoral for people to carry them out?

Where did I say i didn't get then from God? I can't talk to you if you respond to the voices in your head instead of what I actually write. The Bible is that source. 

In John 8:7 did Jesus say it was immoral to stone the woman. Did he say it wasn't ? 

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Where did I say i didn't get then from God?

From your previous post. 

…God can do as he wills. That has no bearing on what's moral or immoral for me.

 

This was my question that you didn’t answer:  So when God listed those punishments in the bible for certain sinful acts, it was immoral for people to carry them out?

 

8 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

In John 8:7 did Jesus say it was immoral to stone the woman. Did he say it wasn't ? 

Irrelevant to God’s commands prior in the OT.  I am asking what was moral prior to Jesus.  You know this.  But you won’t answer.  

[Yakuda]

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

From your previous post. 

…God can do as he wills. That has no bearing on what's moral or immoral for me.

 

This was my question that you didn’t answer:  So when God listed those punishments in the bible for certain sinful acts, it was immoral for people to carry them out?

 

Irrelevant to God’s commands prior in the OT.  I am asking what was moral prior to Jesus.  You know this.  But you won’t answer.  

I have answered repeatedly. You don't like the answer. I wished I cared but I don't. No I don't wish it

[TreeBeard]

25 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

I have answered repeatedly. You don't like the answer. I wished I cared but I don't. No I don't wish it

Fair enough….  You don’t know if killing them was wrong.  Sad.  How come I know it’s wrong despite not getting morals from the bible?

[Yakuda]

40 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Fair enough….  You don’t know if killing them was wrong.  Sad.  How come I know it’s wrong despite not getting morals from the bible?

I didn't say it wasnt wrong. Youre listening to the voices in your head again. If only you were as open minded we you are obstinate you would understand things but youre not. 

[TreeBeard]

6 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

I didn't say it wasnt wrong.

You said you don’t know.  Which is how I paraphrased you.  

[Yakuda]

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You said you don’t know.  Which is how I paraphrased you.  

It's irrelevant. You want to equate God's behavior with mans behavior. In John 8:7 Jesus did not prohibit people from following the law to stone the adulteress he merely added a condition. 

[TreeBeard]

Just now, Yakuda said:

You want to equate God's behavior with mans behavior.

Nope. My question is strictly about man’s behaviour and whether it was moral in that particular situation.  
 

 

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

In John 8:7 Jesus did not prohibit people from following the law to stone the adulteress he merely added a condition. 

That’s irrelevant as to whether it was moral for those people to stone people as a punishment God prescribed in the bible.  
 

 

You don’t know if the killing was moral or immoral.  I’ve never heard anyone so unable to take a moral stance on an example of killing.

Who is the moral relativist here?

 

  (That’s rhetorical….   I will leave this conversation here as we are repeating ourselves.  The last word is all yours)  

 

 

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Nope. My question is strictly about man’s behaviour and whether it was moral in that particular situation.  
 

 

That’s irrelevant as to whether it was moral for those people to stone people as a punishment God prescribed in the bible.  
 

 

You don’t know if the killing was moral or immoral.  I’ve never heard anyone so unable to take a moral stance on an example of killing.

Who is the moral relativist here?

 

  (That’s rhetorical….   I will leave this conversation here as we are repeating ourselves.  The last word is all yours)  

 

 

It's all very relevant. 

What does the John 8:7 passage teaches us about this question. You will have to think not just talk. The headache will be worth the risk. Try it. 

You're the moral relativist here. Nothing I've said contradicts my initial argument 

[TreeBeard]

Moral relativism might be an interesting branch to take the discussion….  I hope more people will chime in. 
 

“Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles.”

- source:Google

 

@Yakuda says he doesn’t know if the killing was moral or immoral.  
I know the killings were immoral, because killing someone for those reasons is clearly always immoral.

Who is the moral relativist?  Based on the definition above, the answer is obvious.  If @Yakuda thinks the killings done today are immoral, but doesn’t know if they were back in “the day”, they are a moral relativist, or at least until they can determine that it was also wrong back then. 

[Yakuda]

On 2/2/2024 at 4:32 PM, TreeBeard said:

Moral relativism might be an interesting branch to take the discussion….  I hope more people will chime in. 
 

“Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles.”

- source:Google

 

@Yakuda says he doesn’t know if the killing was moral or immoral.  
I know the killings were immoral, because killing someone for those reasons is clearly always immoral.

Who is the moral relativist?  Based on the definition above, the answer is obvious.  If @Yakuda thinks the killings done today are immoral, but doesn’t know if they were back in “the day”, they are a moral relativist, or at least until they can determine that it was also wrong back then. 

so no absolute except the absolute that there is no absolute 

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

so no absolute except the absolute that there is no absolute 

Are you summarizing what I said?  Or your own opinion?

[impartialobserver]

Religion is not necessary to live let alone live a satisfying life. The lie is that you need to be spiritual in order to feel fulfilled or content.