Posted on 11/01/2024 1:51:53 PM PDT by Morgana
absolutely no connection to this day and age.
“ absolutely no connection to this day and age.‘
The bible?
I agree!
I pity you.
As a side note, I like it when Gutfeld have women like her on his program - women that appear on his program for what seems like the first time. The look of astonishment and their laughter at some of the things being said, makes the show more real.
Both Kari Lake and Sage Steele hosted townhalls for PDJT. Talented, intelligent, poised and . . . gorgeous.
While I hope Kari Lake is elected to the US Senate, she should also have a spot in Trump’s government if she loses.
I missed Steele on Gutfeld. I’ll bet she was awesome.
She was. I also think she had a slight disagreement with Tyrus about something.
The death of the firstborn was not a matter of “slaughtering babies”; age was not a factor. Only that the firstborn of each family whose doors weren’t marked was killed (even the firstborn of all the beasts).
Why?
Because it was a punishment visited upon Egypt in response to the stubbornness of the Pharaoh, who still refused to release the Hebrews after all of the prior plagues.
For in Egypt, the Pharaoh owned all of the land, was seen as the intermediary between the Egyptians and their gods, and was responsible for maintaining balance and justice in the cosmic order itself; as such, Egypt suffered because of the sins of the Pharaoh.
A very different situation to abortion in the modern day.
I’m familiar with the story. It’s why I brought it up in the first place.
Fact remains that claiming god is pro life considering the old testament stories which includes the slaughter of humans of all ages including everyone on earth shows a flaw in that argument. Abortion is never mentioned.
I find that motivation hard to believe, given that the circumstances are entirely different from the news article under discussion.
Dogbert41 wrote: The slaughter of God’s little babies is Satan’s greatest joy. Whether or not one has quibbles with this on a theological level (or if you just think it's hyperbolic), the obvious sentiment expressed is that the unjustified murder of innocent children is a gravely immoral action.
To which you retorted with a citation of Exodus 12:12: "And I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and will kill every firstborn in the land of Egypt both man and beast: and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord."
Why you would cite this at all is a mystery to anyone with even passing knowledge of Scripture, because judgment passed upon Egypt — punishment for the wickedness of the Pharaoh, who represented all of the land (legally and morally), levied upon the firstborn (age not mention) against human and beast alike; for the Pharaoh did not repent nor relent even after numerous prior plagues (and who, even after finally letting the Hebrews go, would relent once more and try to pursue them with his chariots: an action that would lead to his death and the death of the soldiers who accompanied him) — by God (perfectly Just, and perfectly Good) is categorically distinct from sinful humans wanting to slaughter their own unborn children for the sake of convenience.
So if there's a flaw in anyone's argument here, it's yours.
Again. I understand your argument, I find it to be bs and full of contradictions however.
A perfectly good and just god slaughtering millions?
The epicurean paradox has been around for 2,400 years.
You are, of course, free to believe whatever nonsense you like.
Temples in Egypt were sacred space, therefore there could not be anything that defiled them, and that's why the priests shave themselves every other day, to avoid lice.So the plague of lice was essentially Yahweh crippling the worship of the false gods of Egypt. It's a real slap in the face. Check this out!
And, without reference to a source beyond ourselves, how does it become anything more than a mere matter of preference, philosophically and ethically speaking? You would essentially surrender the question of "what is moral" to a matter of what is popular or merely socially acceptable.
A perfectly good and just god slaughtering millions?
Is it just a matter of numbers? Would it be any less heinous to you if it had been only one condemned to die? Or do you find it beyond comprehension that good can be brought out of even such a harsh punishment?
It's something I find rather fascinating, because going back to even 2002 shows the following comment from you: "So win at any cost, ends justify the means, purposely lie just to get elected and then betray the trust of your constituents for the sake of conservatism? That may work for one term, watcha going to do after that? I don't like those politics. I want someone who stands up for their principles, not another used car salesman in office. There is no honor it what you and others on this thread are endorsing."
Why is it immoral to "win at any cost"? How come the ends don't always justify the means? Why is telling the truth more moral than telling a lie? What does honor even mean without reference to a code (which tended to be, historically speaking, societally contingent)?
That you would call a necessary presupposition for Morality itself (much less Goodness in and of itself, independent of what society values) "nonsense" is, in my opinion, much more of a nonsensical idea.
“ The Epicurean Paradox (which is, in so many words, yet another formulation of the Problem of Evil) doesn’t even have a leg to stand on without reference to an objective moral standard‘
If god is the arbiter of this standard, and the Bible defines it, then slavery is ok, people are property that can be passed down to your children and they can be beaten provided they don’t die from said beating in a couple days.
One example is all that’s required to show that your objective moral standard based on biblical teaching is rubbish.
The Bible doesn’t mention rape either.
‘ The question then becomes “whose standard reigns supreme”?’
There is no supreme standard.
‘ And, without reference to a source beyond ourselves, how does it become anything more than a mere matter of preference, philosophically and ethically speaking?’
It doesn’t.
‘ You would essentially surrender the question of “what is moral” to a matter of what is popular or merely socially acceptable.’
Correct. please don’t conflate morality with laws here as they are not the same thing.
‘ Is it just a matter of numbers?’
No.
‘Would it be any less heinous to you if it had been only one condemned to die?
No
‘Or do you find it beyond comprehension that good can be brought out of even such a harsh punishment?’
Yes.
‘ It’s something I find rather fascinating, because going back to even 2002 shows the following comment from you:’
Creepy.
‘ Why is it immoral to “win at any cost”? How come the ends don’t always justify the means? Why is telling the truth more moral than telling a lie? What does honor even mean without reference to a code (which tended to be, historically speaking, societally contingent)?’
Because it harms society and other humans. The comment was obviously directed at those who advocated for lying in order to win elections and doing the opposite of what they said.
‘ That you would call a necessary presupposition for Morality itself (much less Goodness in and of itself, independent of what society values) “nonsense” is, in my opinion, much more of a nonsensical idea.’
First, don’t make an argument about what you believe I would say
Second, that paragraph doesn’t make sense to me.
The moral standards of God existed before the Bible ever came to be; although I believe in Divine Revelation, I do not believe it is self-interpreting. So I don't agree that the Bible "defines" the standards of God.
One example is all that’s required to show that your objective moral standard based on biblical teaching is rubbish.
And why should I care what you think is "rubbish"? You yourself confess that there is no supreme standard for morals. Furthermore, you wish to distinguish between that which is "moral" versus that which is "lawful"; slavery was once lawful in this country (and around the entire world, and is still lawful in certain countries). If slavery had remained lawful in America, would you even care?
The Bible doesn’t mention rape either.
Rape is a species of lust. Lust and fornication are both condemned.
Creepy.
Why is it creepy? This is a public forum. Your post history and mine are both searchable on FR, and rather trivally at that.
Because it harms society and other humans.
According to whom? What is your definition of "harm"? Some might argue that if your opponents are harmful to society (which society?) and human life (in what sense?), then any means can be justified to make sure they don't come into power. And this has historically happened. (In fact—hypothetically speaking—if those opposed to American conservatism came into enough power to impose their will upon the nation, they would not care one whit if you think their methods are inhuman, immoral, or unlawful; according to them, you're in the wrong, so you wouldn't have any say.)
You've already divested yourself of the moral principles by which to criticize or rebuke them, leaving yourself only with law; but speaking in purely human terms, those who have authority get to decide what laws the people are subject to. If the ones in power decide your beliefs or positions are unlawful, what leg would you have to stand on?
First, don’t make an argument about what you believe I would say
This is what I think your beliefs logically and necessarily imply: why shouldn't I make an argument about I believe you would say? Is there a law I'm breaking that you think I'm bound to?
‘ The moral standards of God existed before the Bible ever came to be; although I believe in Divine Revelation, I do not believe it is self-interpreting. So I don’t agree that the Bible “defines” the standards of God.’
Then where do we find this supreme moral standard and who is the arbiter of what is moral and what is immoral? You know, specifics and such? Where is it written?
‘ And why should I care what you think is “rubbish”? ‘
I don’t care if you care. No one does.
‘You yourself confess that there is no supreme standard for morals. ‘
I did. You have yet to define this standard and what the rules are.
‘Furthermore, you wish to distinguish between that which is “moral” versus that which is “lawful”; ‘
Correct, because they are not the same thing.
‘slavery was once lawful in this country (and around the entire world, and is still lawful in certain countries).
And allowed in exodus 21. This is an example of how laws are not the same as morality, so you’re kind of on the right track.
‘If slavery had remained lawful in America, would you even care?’’
Yes.
‘ Rape is a species of lust. Lust and fornication are both condemned.’
It’s also violence against another person, which the Bible explicitly endorses. It’s clearly not fornication as that implies consent.
‘ Why is it creepy? This is a public forum. Your post history and mine are both searchable on FR, and rather trivally at that.’
I seems it’s not something you’d understand and not relevant to the discussion anyway.
‘ According to whom?’
Is your supposition that lying is moral? Moral under certain circumstances? What’s the argument here? God killed people for lying and hypocrisy according to the Bible you know.
‘What is your definition of “harm”? ‘
The standard definition found in any dictionary.
‘Some might argue that if your opponents are harmful to society (which society?) and human life (in what sense?), then any means can be justified to make sure they don’t come into power. ‘
And..
‘And this has historically happened. ‘
Correct. What does your superior moral standard say regarding that?
‘In fact—hypothetically speaking—if those opposed to American conservatism came into enough power to impose their will upon the nation, they would not care one whit if you think their methods are inhuman, immoral, or unlawful; according to them, you’re in the wrong, so you wouldn’t have any say.)’
Of course I would. It might get me killed though.
‘ You’ve already divested yourself of the moral principles ‘
I’ve done no such thing.
‘by which to criticize or rebuke them, ‘
You’ve yet to define or outline them.
‘leaving yourself only with law; but speaking in purely human terms, those who have authority get to decide what laws the people are subject to. If the ones in power decide your beliefs or positions are unlawful, what leg would you have to stand on?’
My principles. I ask the same of you.
‘ This is what I think your beliefs logically and necessarily imply: ‘
And that’s where one can be very wrong.
‘why shouldn’t I make an argument about I believe you would say? Is there a law I’m breaking that you think I’m bound to?’
Courtesy.
1) First cause has full autonomy and is sovereign so riddle me that in relation to all sorts of actions over an indigent secondary cause that is not completely innocent as they walk the earth created by the First Cause.
2) Who killed the first born sons initially in the story you cited? Help you out here, the Egyptians because they feared a slave revolt (Remember baby Moses down the river who was to lead the Hebrews out) from some Hebrew savior.
3) Egyptians were given plenty of warning but still did not repent.
4) First Cause knew their hearts (Since they are His creation after all) and hoisted them on their own petard (Remember who killed the first born sons first).
5) Wisdom starts with fear of the First Cause, those who have that fear are fortunate. Those without, they need to humble themselves.
As to 1, lol. Cutting and pasting stuff you find searching the internet is lame. Especially when it doesn’t address morality, the discussion you’re attempting to jump into.
2. They killed people first so god had to do the same is a sophomoric argument usually given up in middle school. But to use it to somehow defend a god who could have prevented murdering and suffering in the first place is bizarre.
Your post is nonsense, doesn’t address the issue being discussed and I’ll just ignore the rest.
Have a great day.
1) Where did I cut and paste? Weak goal post move without addressing the issue. 2)Yes I did, you are too hard-hearted to comprehend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.