Is morality objective or subjective?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 753
#571
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
1. Is the one making the alarm aware they are lying?
Their actions are consistent with an awareness of lying.
OR just trying to get food by creating a diversion. The ones who normally got first dibs were angry that a subordinate member of the troop got to eat their food by diverting their attention.

There are also behavioral studies that alternatively reward and or punish deception in apes and if they think it's worth the risk, they will lie.
A Pavlovian reaction. 

2. Do they know they are stealing?
Their actions are consistent with an awareness of stealing, they take measures to hide the food that they don't take under normal circumstances.
OR they guard it or hid it since they understand that if they don't others will eat it. It is a protective reaction to ensure they have something later to eat. 
#572
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Why is it wrong?  What moral AXIOM brings you to the conclusion, "some killing is awesome and some is bad depending on the circumstances"?
In war it is ..' do unto others before they do onto you '...

In peace it is as follows below

Golden Rule Variations

The golden rule --do unto others as you would have them doonto you---- has
a common variation in many countries and religions. I wondered if there
were any other rules with such commonality e.g,

Is there a silver rule also? "Seek fair and just resolution with
compassion and empathy for those who violate the laws and moral codes of
humanity or its distinct tribes. "

Perhaps a wooden rule? Forgiveness by God is instantaneous, forgiveness
by humans takes time.

Or the bone rule? Eye for eye and toothe for a tooth. [im not sure if
any animals other than humans practice this concept]

Molecular rule? "Share not with your cousin what you would not have
them share with you."

Quantum rule? "Know that the uncertainty of mind, being common to all
humans, does not neccessitate chaos."

Space-time Rule? ---Pee-Here-Now is rendition of Ram Dass’sBe Here Now


#573
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Apparently, at least in animals, the most successful strategies promote survival of the species.
In a universe devoid of meaning why does it matter what animals do?
Animals fight to survive and to avoid pain regardless of your AXIOLOGY.
Sure, I'll grant that, but what of moral meaning? Morality makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. Also, the grand scheme, if there is no God, is indifferent to what you or animals feel. There is no ultimate meaning from such a worldview, just the temporary meaning you create. 

Why are you creating meaning in what is ultimately meaningless?
Human INSTINCT fights to survive and to avoid pain regardless of your AXIOLOGY.
What makes that moral and why?

Why do you continually look for meaning and find it significant?
I am interested in learning how to better survive and avoid pain and I'm pretty sure you are as well and I'm pretty sure this was just as true 10,000 years ago as it is today.
Is that a moral issue? If so, why?

You continually borrow from my Christain worldview, not an atheistic or materialistic worldview.
I'm not an Atheist, I'm a GNOSTIC DEIST.
I was assuming you were an atheist. I did not take your claim of Thog seriously. Should I have? 

How does that answer anything? You know there is a God or gods, but you don't know who or what that God or god is. What revelation do you have from that god or gods that confirms your belief?

Which of these definitions of Thog conforms to your worldview or do you have another?

Thog may refer to

How do I take this seriously?

Thus, you are inconsistent.
Please be more specific.
If morality is relative to human beings how is your moral view any better than any other? If it is not better then why do you hold onto it? Any view is as good as any other. 

In an atheistic worldview, you are determined.
In all worldviews you are determined.  How can you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god without also believing that god created your desire for "sinful activities"?
Adam had the will to know evil or not. He chose to know evil. God did not create evil. He created a being with freedom to choose not to do what God said was good and what God commanded not to do. Even though God knew what Adam would choose He did not force Adam not to do what Adam did. He allowed Adam to choose. Adam's choice had consequences. If I allow you to do something that is going to hurt you how have I determined you in doing it?  

You are just a machine.
That's just a clunky metaphor.  I'm more like a thunderstorm.
I was speaking from an atheistic worldview.

A random process (how contradictory) that causes intricate mechanical functions is a machine. Does your body work like a machine? 

The way your electrochemical processes react to stimuli and outside influences such as your environment determines what you will do.
And you prefer to imagine that your actions are fundamentally dis-coupled from any and all influence (rendering them indistinguishable from random)?
Not at all from any and all influences. I know I have a bias. Any worldview has a bias. The question is whether what I believe is true or not. 

What is moral about that.
Indeed.  What is moral (or immoral) about actions fundamentally dis-coupled from any and all influence (free actions)?

How could you punish someone for an action that had no initiation, no motive (Causa sui)?
But our actions do have intent and motive. The question from an atheistic perspective was how and why?

We do will, we do what we want or desire even though those thoughts are influenced by other actions and things.  

It is just the way things are. Why should my electrochemical functions or anyone else act in the same way? If they do, bonus. You live!
Good thing most humans are capable of empathy.
I was coming at this from an atheistic worldview.

Perhaps you should disclose how you believe we originated because from a willy-nilly random chance universe it makes no sense why things would have reason and order to them. 
#574
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Your hypothetical god must be a moron if they expect error-slaves to be able to figure out which religion is "the right one".
Now you are using ad hominem implications for what would it say about those who believe in this God? Are they morons too? 
Try not to leap to conclusions.  It's a conditional statement.  Does your hypothetical god expect error-slaves to be able to figure out which religion is "the right one"?  Why would an infinitely wise creator make so many error-slaves in the first place?
First, you called the biblical God hypothetical. Then you surmise this hypothetical God must be a moron knowing well that I do not believe in a hypothetical God, only you do. If you are going to call Him hypothetical then prove as much or else you are making all kinds of assumptions and assertions. 

God did not make them that way in the first place. Humanity is the way it is because of Adam's disobedience to God. Adam chose the course he would take and that course affected us. We inherited the same nature he acquired with his disobedience.  

Imagine a parent who keeps their identity secret from their children their whole lives, always watching them, always making sure they have food, clothing and shelter, but just stands idly by when other people tell their children that they are their "real" parents.  Can they really get upset if their own children believe some random strangers are their "real" parents?  I mean, if they CAN reveal themselves to each person individually, you know, like with a talking donkey or something, WHY DON'T THEY JUST DO THAT?
Our problem comes in that we do not want to listen to God. We resist Him so much that we deny Him according to the biblical revelation (Romans 1). We do this because we prefer our sins; we prefer doing what is contrary to goodness; we make up what is good, and it is relative. 

Can you show me that you are not a slave to those desires that control you?
Can you show me that you are not a slave to those desires that control you?  Probably not.  We can make claims, but I don't think we can "show it".
I have my issues like every human being. The difference between a Christian and an unbeliever is that our hearts and minds have been changed. We no longer are at enmity with God. We also have a perfect sacrifice for sin, one that meets God's righteous requirements. 

I contend we are all slaves to something if you want to use the slave analogy.
Sure, why not.

It is by the grace of God, His mercy, and His revelation that we come to the truth. Take that statement however you want. 
Ok, I'm going to assume you're sincere, but I'd like to point out that (without sound logical support) what you call "the truth" is indistinguishable from PURE OPINION.
I have justifiable reasons for my faith although I don't think you would engage in exploring them. I have tried many times and have learned that those who do not want to hear them will shut them down. I can give good, reasoned, logical reasons that I content you would have a hard time in justifying sound, reasoned, logical refutations of.  
#575
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I can lie it out for you further. 

1. You know Brahman exists yet you suppress the truth of God with your unrighteousness. 
2. Brahman has supplied the evidence of itself with each human being.
3. It is by hardening our hearts to Brahman and denying it that suppresses the truth of Brahman. 
4. Brahman's divine nature is seen in what has been made. 
5. Thus, you are without excuse. 

Now, if you want to know Brahman you first have to believe it exists instead of suppressing this ancient and undeniable truth.

To think you will know Brahman when you deny its existence is illogical. Yet if you truly seek Brahman I truly believe it will be found by you. And it has to be the one and only true Brahman. Will your own mind get in your way? Will you adamantly reject Brahman or call out to it? Again, that is between you and Brahman. 

Are you convinced?  Why are you not convinced??  This is such a convincing case for Brahman!

And where do you find this evidence or support for Brahman? That is not convincing. It is just assertions. My case for God has ancient writings that state these premises as well as historical people, places, events that back up the Bible. Not only that, the Bible itself has unity and logic that is not easily disputed reasonably. 
#576
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
..' all is fair in love and war '...  I dont think so.
#577
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
What is wrong with murder? It is the intentional and malicious taking of innocent life. 
That's just a definition.
Definitions are ways in which we understand what a thing is. Unless we define terms in complicated issues we are talking past each other. 

Why is it wrong?  What moral AXIOM brings you to the conclusion, "some killing is awesome and some is bad depending on the circumstances"?
Let us not lose track of the context - in relation to intentionally and maliciously killing innocent human beings.

Why is murder wrong? Because it is the taking of innocent life and God does not permit it. Equal justice would be a life for a life as the measure. As for "some killing is awesome," I think that statement is suspect since if someone decided to kill you for no just reason would you still think so? The case for laws is those laws should be just. Laws imply justice. Breaking those laws result in a penalty.

So, if you don't think murder is wrong then you should not object to someone killing you for the simple reason that they do not like you or do not like the way you tie your shoe laces. 

#578
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
What's the underlying principle?
The underlying principle is that 1) all human beings have a basic right to live, 2) murder takes away that right, 3) all human beings should be treated equally under the law or there is no justice.
I appreciate your tenacity.

Why do you believe all human beings have a basic right to live?
Because from a biblical standpoint, we are created in the image and likeness of God and it is not for us to murder or kill an innocent human being. The Creator has the right to take life since He created it and He does not want human beings taking innocent life.

From a human standpoint, I do not want anyone killing me or my loved ones without just cause. Just cause points to the equality of persons. 

Why do you believe all human beings should be treated equally under the law?
From a biblical standpoint, we are answerable to God.

From a human standpoint, if we do not hold people to a just standard any evil is possible. If we do not treat all people as intrinsically valuable what does it matter what someone does to someone else?
#579
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
What if I like having people attack me and test my strength so I go around attacking people to test their strength?
Then you live by the fallacy of might makes right.
How is this a fallacy?
Appeal to force or appeal to fear:

What specific idea makes you think "might-makes-right" is incorrect or improper?
Justice.

Might-makes-right allows 'brute force' to rule the day. It means that those who have power can apply any preference they like on others. I believe, but I could be wrong, that you would not want to live under the dictatorship of Kim Jong-un. Now, why is that?
#580
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Why should that matter?
Because the truth matters. Because anyone can make a delusional claim or believe something that is not true.  
You make a phenomenal point.

How do we know, if someone claims they've seen BigFoot, ...how do we know if they're telling the truth?

My number one point,

1) God has made human beings reasoning beings.

2) As reasoning beings, we have the logical coherency test which also includes logical necessity and necessary or reasonable cause.

3) As reasoning beings we have the experiential test - can what we believe be lived consistently or do we live inconsistently with our first or starting principles and presuppositions?

4) Evidential test. Is there evidence or reasonable proof for what we believe?

And I'm sure you could add many more reasons. 
#581
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
By the way, I was first introduced to Taoism by Alan Watts. I think I read a couple of Alan's books. That was in the region of 35-39 years ago.

#582
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@golfer
Is it moral to murder a woman for fucking?
#583
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Why do you believe all human beings have a basic right to live?
Because from a biblical standpoint, we are created in the image and likeness of God and it is not for us to murder or kill an innocent human being.
Hold up.  Don't move the goal-posts.  First you say ALL human beings have a basic right to live and THEN you suggest only INNOCENT human beings have a basic right to life.

Which is it?  And how do you QUANTIFY "innocence"?

What about homeless people?

Do homeless people have a basic right to life?

Aren't they "guilty" of vagrancy and therefore not "innocent"?

Or maybe they told a lie to someone, does that mean their (un-innocent, despoiled, worthless) lives are fair-game at that point?
#584
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Why do you believe all human beings have a basic right to live?
Because from a biblical standpoint, we are created in the image and likeness of God and it is not for us to murder or kill an innocent human being.
Hold up.  Don't move the goal-posts.  First you say ALL human beings have a basic right to live and THEN you suggest only INNOCENT human beings have a basic right to life.
While it is true we all have the basic right to life, justice must also be served. When a person takes the life of an innocent human being what is equal justice? It is a life for a life, but that life should not be taken by us but by the State unless in self-defence of us or our loved ones or during an act of war. 

Which is it?  And how do you QUANTIFY "innocence"?
The OT biblical principle is it is the right to life for everyone unless a person maliciously takes another innocent human life.

Innocent is someone who is not guilty of wrongdoing. If you accuse me of stealing your pen and I did not do it I am innocent of the charge. 

What about homeless people?

Do homeless people have a basic right to life?
Of course. You misunderstand what I said. The biblical principle is that we are all equal in God's sight but when someone maliciously takes an innocent life, the OT penalty was a life for a life and it was Israel's responsibility to seek justice in such cases.


Aren't they "guilty" of vagrancy and therefore not "innocent"?
In your country, the punishment of death does not fit the crime. It is not equal justice. Usually, it is a warning to vacate the property. In OT and NT times, the poor were given provisions by God. It was built into the theocratic rule, which we no longer live under. 

Leviticus 19:9-10 (NASB)
Sundry Laws
9 ‘Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the Lord your God.


Leviticus 19:33-34 (NASB)
33 ‘When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God.

‘When you reap the harvest of your land, moreover, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field nor gather the gleaning of your harvest; you are to leave them for the needy and the alien. I am the Lord your God.’”

For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? ...

If you want to act justly under biblical principles, feed, clothe and shelter them. But also, as Jesus said, you will always have the poor with you. You can only do as much as God allows you to do by your means. If you are poor too, then the responsibility is to your family but if God has blessed you with much wealth then it is in your ability to help so many more.

Or maybe they told a lie to someone, does that mean their (un-innocent, despoiled, worthless) lives are fair-game at that point?
No, the punishment does not fit the crime in most cases. Treason in your country may be one such case. If you lied about a treasonous act or about murdering someone that would comply.  

#585
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Hold up.  Don't move the goal-posts.  First you say ALL human beings have a basic right to live and THEN you suggest only INNOCENT human beings have a basic right to life.
While it is true we all have the basic right to life, justice must also be served. When a person takes the life of an innocent human being what is equal justice? It is a life for a life, but that life should not be taken by us but by the State unless in self-defence of us or our loved ones or during an act of war. 
Ok, iff I'm following you, you're steel-man would be, "ALL human beings have a basic right to live UNLESS they commit a capital crime"?

What about, speaking strictly from the Christian book,

Yahweh’s originally designated punishment for...... <tick tock>
Fortune telling? Ken?
Death. (Lev 20:27)

Correct. Hitting a parent? Ken?
Death (Ex 21:15)

Correct. Cursing a parent? Craig?
Death (Lev 20:9)

Yes. Not listening to a priest? Ken?
Death. ( Deut 17:12)

Correct. Following another religion? Craig?
Death. (Ex 22:20)

Yes. Adultery? Craig?
Death (Lev 20:10)

COrrect. Not seeking the lord god of Israel? Ken?
Death ( 2 Chron 15:12-13). 

Correct.Fornication? Ken?
Prison?
No, sorry the correct answer is Death (Lev 21:9)

Dammit
Prophesying falsely? Craig?
Death (Zech 13:3)

Correct, bonus points if you can tell us who has to kill the false prophet?
His or her parents.
Very good. Homosexuality? Ken?
Death (Lev 20:13)

Yes. Blasphemy? Ken?
Death. (Lev 24:10-16)

Correct. Working on the sabbath? Craig?
Death (Ex 31:12-15)

Yes. Having a few people in your town worship another god? Craig?
Death 

More information...
Death for the entire town

.... a little more....
and the livestock.... err..and put the entire town to the torch so that the town is a ruin forever
Correct (Deut 13:13-16 and just in time  very nearly running out of time there with both of our contestants showing an admirable familiarity with scripture so far tonight, 

#586
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Why should that matter?
Because the truth matters. Because anyone can make a delusional claim or believe something that is not true.  
But surely some truths are more important than others.  Why would you move this particular one to the top of your list?

What's the imminent harm?

  If you have a personal relationship with an all-powerful god, who cares if anyone believes you?
Because evidence can point to whether a belief is justified or not, whether it is reasonable or irrational or blind. When you have two or more conflicting beliefs about God one if any can only be true. 
Only you believe that different god stories can cancel each other out.  That's like saying if you like the story of Goldilocks, you can't also like Jack and the Beanstalk.

When you say "depends", what are you talking about.  Thog is non-contingent.
So you say. Why should I believe you or what you believe is true? It appears to have no means of verification other than your word. 
Thog is beyond your epistemological limits.  Are you suggesting that you have no epistemological limits?

Why should I believe you?
YOU SHOULDN'T.

NEVER TRUST SOMEONE ELSE'S GNOSIS.

FIND YOUR OWN GNOSIS.
Well, you have established your made-up god knowledge is not worth believing. The message is not worth repeating or dying for. 
I'm pretty sure only each individual can decide for themselves, personally, what they think is worth living and or dying for.

Who else believes in this Thog and where is this documented?
Thog created the concept of religion a hundred thousand years ago and all religions are aspects of Thog.
What is your proof? Present some evidence other than your hearsay. 
Why do you hate Thog so much?  Why are you so afraid of The Truth?

All religions are evidence of this.
Are evidence of what, Thog creating a concept of religion? How is that evidence? It is just one persons hearsay - mere assertion. 
You can't prove me wrong.

If you don't believe me, it's because Thog doesn't want you to believe me.
Thog cannot be omnibenevolent. He leaves no witness of himself/herself/itself except your weak belief to date. Go ahead and belief such nonsense then. 
Nobody claimed Thog is "omnibenevolent" (whatever that means).
#587
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Hold up.  Don't move the goal-posts.  First you say ALL human beings have a basic right to live and THEN you suggest only INNOCENT human beings have a basic right to life.
While it is true we all have the basic right to life, justice must also be served. When a person takes the life of an innocent human being what is equal justice? It is a life for a life, but that life should not be taken by us but by the State unless in self-defence of us or our loved ones or during an act of war. 
Ok, iff I'm following you, you're steel-man would be, "ALL human beings have a basic right to live UNLESS they commit a capital crime"?
Well put!


God is concerned for the spiritual welfare of His people. God takes it seriously when His people are misled since it leads them away from true salvation and towards a spiritual death and separation from God for eternity. 

What about, speaking strictly from the Christian book,

Yahweh’s originally designated punishment for...... <tick tock>
Fortune telling? Ken?
Death. (Lev 20:27)
Those were crimes that warranted the death penalty because they broke the command of idolatry. Idolatry was serious because it quickly spread and contaminated the land of Israel. It promoted the worship of false gods and broke the covenant they made with God. Remember, Israel was a theocracy. God wanted His people to know what holiness and purity was. God was conveying to them the severity of sin. They were an example for us on how seriously God abhors sin. 

For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy.

And eventually, any sin unatoned for results in the death penalty (i.e., spiritual death or separation from God). But God treated some sins as more deserving of death because of the consequences of such actions in undermining God's plans and purpose for Israel. 

God wanted Israel to purge the evil from among them. 

Correct. Hitting a parent? Ken?
Death (Ex 21:15)
God wanted Israel to place honour on elders and children to respect their parents/those who bore them. 

Correct. Cursing a parent? Craig?
Death (Lev 20:9)
Ibid.

Yes. Not listening to a priest? Ken?
Death. ( Deut 17:12)
The mediator between God and them. The one who presented atonement for their sins before God.

Correct. Following another religion? Craig?
Death. (Ex 22:20)
The yeast spreads quickly through the batch. They committed to following God. God wanted them to know their word was important to Him.  

Yes. Adultery? Craig?
Death (Lev 20:10)
Again, sexual impurity was typological of a greater truth, Israel's relationship to God and in the NT the Churches' relationship with God. God is faithful to His bride. He wants the same quality for His bride. 

COrrect. Not seeking the lord god of Israel? Ken?
Death ( 2 Chron 15:12-13). 
Again, it broke the covenant Israel made with God. Idolatry was adultery. It sort another lover. It was unfaithful to the covenant Israel made with God. 


Correct.Fornication? Ken?
Prison?
No, sorry the correct answer is Death (Lev 21:9)
Again, God wanted a virgin bride, not someone who had a variety of other sexual relations. The more sexual relationships a person has the harder it is to commit to one person. 

Dammit
Prophesying falsely? Craig?
Death (Zech 13:3)
Most definitely. False prophets mislead the people away from God. The prophesied lies about God. They preached rebellion against God. They were blasphemy. 

Correct, bonus points if you can tell us who has to kill the false prophet?
His or her parents.
Death by stoning. 

Deuteronomy 13:8-11 (NASB)
8 you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. 9 But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 So you shall stone him to death because he has sought to seduce you from the Lord your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such a wicked thing among you.

Very good. Homosexuality? Ken?
Death (Lev 20:13)
Again, homosexuality opposed God's desire for marriage and family. The sanctity of marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the natural and desired relationship. Anything else is sexually immoral. It is a tough law yet it reflects the holiness of God. God's purpose for marriage between a man and woman was to highlight a greater spiritual truth, Israel's and the church's relationship with God.  

Yes. Blasphemy? Ken?
Death. (Lev 24:10-16)
Exactly. 

"the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk."

Correct. Working on the sabbath? Craig?
Death (Ex 31:12-15)
Again, the day was for Israel's relationship and thinking about God. 

Yes. Having a few people in your town worship another god? Craig?
Death 

More information...
Death for the entire town

.... a little more....
and the livestock.... err..and put the entire town to the torch so that the town is a ruin forever
Correct (Deut 13:13-16 and just in time  very nearly running out of time there with both of our contestants showing an admirable familiarity with scripture so far tonight, 

Again, Israel made a covenant with God that He called them to obey. It was in their eternal best interest for if they rejected God they would be separated from Him forever. Thus, the covenant was not to be taken lightly.  
#588
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Why should that matter?
Because the truth matters. Because anyone can make a delusional claim or believe something that is not true.  
But surely some truths are more important than others.  Why would you move this particular one to the top of your list?

What's the imminent harm?
I'm not sure of the fuller context of what is being discussed here.

  If you have a personal relationship with an all-powerful god, who cares if anyone believes you?
Because evidence can point to whether a belief is justified or not, whether it is reasonable or irrational or blind. When you have two or more conflicting beliefs about God one if any can only be true. 
Only you believe that different god stories can cancel each other out.
It is a matter of logic, isn't it? Two contrary beliefs regarding the same issue at the same time cannot both be true. 

"It is raining in my neighbourhood now."
"It is not raining in my neighbourhood now." 

One of those two statements does not meet the criteria of what is fact or the case. Thus, one of those statements is false. 

"There is a God."
"There is no God." 

Again, the same reasoning.



That's like saying if you like the story of Goldilocks, you can't also like Jack and the Beanstalk.
To you it is because you have an extreme confirmational bias. You treat it as nothing but a fairy tale, or make-believe. 


When you say "depends", what are you talking about.  Thog is non-contingent.
So you say. Why should I believe you or what you believe is true? It appears to have no means of verification other than your word. 
Thog is beyond your epistemological limits.  Are you suggesting that you have no epistemological limits?
Thog is unreasonable to believe but you are welcome to believe. Good luck with that!

How do you know you are not hallucinating or delusionally hearing make-believe voices? Your claims lack credibility. 

No, I definitely recognize some of my limits. 

Why should I believe you?
YOU SHOULDN'T.

NEVER TRUST SOMEONE ELSE'S GNOSIS.

FIND YOUR OWN GNOSIS.
Well, you have established your made-up god knowledge is not worth believing. The message is not worth repeating or dying for. 
I'm pretty sure only each individual can decide for themselves, personally, what they think is worth living and or dying for.
Do you trust enough in Thog to die for Thog? 

Who else believes in this Thog and where is this documented?
Thog created the concept of religion a hundred thousand years ago and all religions are aspects of Thog.
What is your proof? Present some evidence other than your hearsay. 
Why do you hate Thog so much?  Why are you so afraid of The Truth?
I hate falsity. If a person can't give some reasonable evidence for Thog's existence I think they are delusional. 

All religions are evidence of this.
Are evidence of what, Thog creating a concept of religion? How is that evidence? It is just one persons hearsay - mere assertion. 
You can't prove me wrong.
You have not given me enough information and nothing that is reasonable to date. Not only this, once you find the one and only true God you have no desires for carp except to expose its errors. 

If you don't believe me, it's because Thog doesn't want you to believe me.
Thog cannot be omnibenevolent. He leaves no witness of himself/herself/itself except your weak belief to date. Go ahead and belief such nonsense then. 
Nobody claimed Thog is "omnibenevolent" (whatever that means).

God is the greatest conceivable being that can be thought of. How does Thog meet that standard? He is already lesser than the biblical God if Thog is not omnibenevolent. Why would you worship such a god that is both evil and good? 
#589
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
(Zech 13:3)

And if anyone still prophesies, their father and mother, to whom they were born, will say to them, ‘You must die, because you have told lies in the Lord’s name.’ Then their own parents will stab the one who prophesies.

Then their own parents will stab the one who prophesies.
#590
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Ok, iff I'm following you, you're steel-man would be, "ALL human beings have a basic right to live UNLESS they commit a capital crime"?
Well put!
Do you believe it would be fair to say, "ALL human beings have a basic right to live UNLESS they curse a parent (OR) commit adultery (marry a divorcee) or commit any other capital crime explicitly detailed in the one-and-only holy Christian book"?

It seems like the gross number of human beings that have "a basic right to live" suddenly dropped off rather sharply.
#591
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Only you believe that different god stories can cancel each other out.
It is a matter of logic, isn't it? Two contrary beliefs regarding the same issue at the same time cannot both be true. 

"It is raining in my neighbourhood now."
"It is not raining in my neighbourhood now." 

One of those two statements does not meet the criteria of what is fact or the case. Thus, one of those statements is false. 

"There is a God."
"There is no God." 

Again, the same reasoning.
But strangely, believing in little red riding hood doesn't mean you can't also believe in the three little pigs.
#592
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
That's like saying if you like the story of Goldilocks, you can't also like Jack and the Beanstalk.
To you it is because you have an extreme confirmational bias. You treat it as nothing but a fairy tale, or make-believe. 
When you refuse to accept that Thog is real, is it perhaps because of YOUR extreme "confirmational" bias?
#593
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Thog is beyond your epistemological limits.  Are you suggesting that you have no epistemological limits?
Thog is unreasonable to believe but you are welcome to believe.
How do you determine what is reasonable to believe?
#594
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, iff I'm following you, you're steel-man would be, "ALL human beings have a basic right to live UNLESS they commit a capital crime"?
Well put!
Do you believe it would be fair to say, "ALL human beings have a basic right to live UNLESS they curse a parent (OR) commit adultery (marry a divorcee) or commit any other capital crime explicitly detailed in the one-and-only holy Christian book"?
You confuse the OT times with our own. God made a covenant with Israel that teaches them directly and us indirectly how holy and pure God is. It also teaches us that it is impossible to live up to such a standard. Now, if you lived under that covenant, how many of the Ten Commandments would you have personally broken judging by how many you have actually broken? The 613 Mosaic commandments were in addition to those basic ten, but they incorporated a lot of the principles of the Ten. Jesus summed them up in two.

God is teaching that we need to respect others and treat them well. That was well beyond the other teachings of the ANE. When we don't treat others well, there are consequences or else the concept gets lost. The concept seems sharp and severe to us today, granted. We don't stone people. 

It seems like the gross number of human beings that have "a basic right to live" suddenly dropped off rather sharply.
You seem to think the two can't operate together. I can believe all human beings deserve the right to life, to be treated with dignity and respect but that when egregious harm is done by one to the other there is a disrespect that takes place. Murder happens to be one of those cases. It requires justice or else we lose the intrinsic value that we all deserve.  

#595
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Thog is beyond your epistemological limits.  Are you suggesting that you have no epistemological limits?
Thog is unreasonable to believe but you are welcome to believe.
How do you determine what is reasonable to believe?
I already gave you four reasons. You're not listening. 
#596
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@cc
Moral laws stem for ten. 

Would you say it is wrong to murder? By murder, I mean intentionally and maliciously killing an innocent human being, someone who has not wronged you.

Would you say it is wrong to lie? Is that a just principle? If not why should I believe you?

Is it wrong to steal? Is that a just principle? If not, you should have no objections to someone taking your valuables. 

Is it wrong to covet your neighbour's wife, goods, possessions?  Is that a just principle? If not, then you should not object to someone coveting your wife or possessions. 

Is it wrong to commit adultery? Is that a just principle? If not you should no object to your wife cheating on you and creating a division in your family by leaving you and taking the kids with her. 

What all these laws and the others boil down to is doing unto others what you would want them to do to you. Do you want someone to murder you, steal from you, lie to you, cheat on you, want what is yours? Then you should treat others th

Is it wrong to murder a woman for fucking?
#597
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, iff I'm following you, you're steel-man would be, "ALL human beings have a basic right to live UNLESS they commit a capital crime"?
Well put!
Do you believe it would be fair to say, "ALL human beings have a basic right to live UNLESS they curse a parent (OR) commit adultery (marry a divorcee) or commit any other capital crime explicitly detailed in the one-and-only holy Christian book"?
We do not live in OT times not do we practice some of their punishments. God had a purpose in creating such strict measures. It helped them to see that God's standard of holiness and purity exceeds ours. It also gives not only them directly but us indirectly they sense of honouring our elders and those who should be protecting us. The OT Mosaic laws were designed with Israel in mind, yet they also have principles we can all live by and many of which we have adopted into our own secular laws as well as how God expects us to treat others. 

All human beings have the basic right to life but they do not have the right to act immorally and kill innocent human beings. Once that happens, they may compromise that 'right to life' in the taking of another life. 


It seems like the gross number of human beings that have "a basic right to live" suddenly dropped off rather sharply.


#598
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Only you believe that different god stories can cancel each other out.
It is a matter of logic, isn't it? Two contrary beliefs regarding the same issue at the same time cannot both be true. 

"It is raining in my neighbourhood now."
"It is not raining in my neighbourhood now." 

One of those two statements does not meet the criteria of what is fact or the case. Thus, one of those statements is false. 

"There is a God."
"There is no God." 

Again, the same reasoning.
But strangely, believing in little red riding hood doesn't mean you can't also believe in the three little pigs.
I do not see how this relates to the Bible. 

nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.

and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.


2 Corinthians 10:5-6 (NASB)
5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, 6 and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete.

Colossians 2:8 (NASB)
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

#599
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
(Zech 13:3)

And if anyone still prophesies, their father and mother, to whom they were born, will say to them, ‘You must die, because you have told lies in the Lord’s name.’ Then their own parents will stab the one who prophesies.

Then their own parents will stab the one who prophesies.

Should you unjustly treat those who are responsible for your earthly existence and your care with contempt and disrespect, with those who have provided a home for you, providing for your health and safety, food and clothing, as well as guiding you in your moral well-being? 
#600
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
That's like saying if you like the story of Goldilocks, you can't also like Jack and the Beanstalk.
To you it is because you have an extreme confirmational bias. You treat it as nothing but a fairy tale, or make-believe. 
When you refuse to accept that Thog is real, is it perhaps because of YOUR extreme "confirmational" bias?

Yes, I do refuse to accept Thog is real. You have given me no good reasons as to why your belief is justifiable. All you have given is personal revelation that I wonder why I should trust. I have offered you many good reasons regarding my belief.