Jump to content

Abortion overturned


stahleyp
 Share

Recommended Posts

And you say that Jesus is God and there were child brides everywhere in the days of Jesus yet he says nothing about it.  Hmm...  He talks about morality a lot but says nothing about this topic.  He wasn't shy about public speaking either.

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And Paul, as you believe in the Trinity, how do you reconcile God's order to Moses for revenge with Jesus' reputation of teaching forgiveness?  Was that a lesson of forgiveness?  In the vein of "what would Jesus do", how do we weigh what he DID when we ask what he WOULD do?

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This order from God to Moses to "take revenge" was not a direct and literal "go murder and take child brides" order.  That reminds me of the movie The Godfather where "I want you to take care of a problem for me".

And one of his other personas, Jesus, only speaks words of peace and kindness to the crowds who listen to him socially.  Very different from the side of him that ordered Moses to take revenge under the name of God.

So ultimately, I am reminded of Fight Club where in the end I realize that Edward Norton's character and Bradd Pitt's are one and the same.  And I am reminded of a narcissist that speaks so kindly and polished in public but then shows a true side in private.

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ERICOPOLY said:

This order from God to Moses to "take revenge" was not a direct and literal "go murder and take child brides" order.  That reminds me of the movie The Godfather where "I want you to take care of a problem for me".

And one of his other personas, Jesus, only speaks words of peace and kindness to the crowds who listen to him socially.  Very different from the side of him that ordered Moses to take revenge under the name of God.

So ultimately, I am reminded of Fight Club where in the end I realize that Edward Norton's character and Bradd Pitt's are one and the same.  And I am reminded of a narcissist that speaks so kindly and polished in public but then shows a true side in private.

Which do you think is more likely to be true: We misinterpret/misunderstand part of the Bible or that it's okay to throw homosexuals off of buildings?

If God doesn't exist, there is no foundation to think moral truths exist. Morality is basically the equivalent to fashion. Perhaps it's "fashionable" to throw homosexuals off of a building in society A but a "fashion faux pas" in society B.

Ultimately, all of this "morality" comes from the same source - evolutionary instincts. It's simply by chance that the societies' values aren't reversed.  The values are just different - not better or worse. 

Which poses another question: why are you more critical of the Bible than the morality that you've been conditioned to accept?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stahleyp said:

 

If God doesn't exist, there is no foundation to think moral truths exist.

 

Morality on MAP has changed throughout time and therefore if God is the source of morality we can at best infer that he changed his mind about morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stahleyp said:

Which do you think is more likely to be true: We misinterpret/misunderstand part of the Bible or that it's okay to throw homosexuals off of buildings?

What do you think is more likely to be true:  that God is the source of morality or that God created the universe?

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harm only to the 'formed' foetus?

A second ancient interpretation of this passage allows that 'harm' applies to the unborn child, but only after this child is 'formed'. The most influential Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, makes a distinction not between harm to the unborn child (a fine) and the woman (life for life) but between harm to the unformed embryo (a fine) and the formed foetus (life for life). The Jewish philosopher Philo, an older contemporary of Josephus, follows this interpretation:

If the child within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine...But if the child had assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper and distinctive qualities, he shall die. (4)

 

https://humanjourney.org.uk/articles/exodus-21-and-abortion/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ERICOPOLY said:

What do you think is more likely to be true:  that God is the source of morality or that God created the universe?

Both.

 

So we misunderstand the Bible and it's okay to throw homosexuals off of buildings? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Traditionally ascribed to Moses himself, modern scholars see its initial composition as a product of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, with final revisions in the Persian post-exilic period (5th century BCE).["

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Exodus#:~:text=Traditionally ascribed to Moses himself,period (5th century BCE).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2022 at 10:05 AM, ERICOPOLY said:

Is birth control immoral Paul?  Vasectomies?

"Birth control" may be immoral. Depends on what it is. I don't see vasectomies as immoral because another human being isn't being destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ERICOPOLY said:

Homosexuality doesn't destroy another human being, so it too is moral.

By that line of thinking, cheating on one's spouse isn't destroying another human, so it too is moral.

In fact, if one's wife is pregnant, perhaps it's a moral good to cheat if you get another "birthing person" pregnant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stahleyp said:

By that line of thinking, cheating on one's spouse isn't destroying another human, so it too is moral.

In fact, if one's wife is pregnant, perhaps it's a moral good to cheat if you get another "birthing person" pregnant. 

Cheating runs against my morality because the deception is emotionally hurtful, and exposes the deceived partner to unknown risks from STDs.

If both partners have a conversation and agree to the extramarital sex then it isn't cheating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

Cheating runs against my morality because the deception is emotionally hurtful, and exposes the deceived partner to unknown risks from STDs.

If both partners have a conversation and agree to the extramarital sex then it isn't cheating.

Yes, but that is just because your evolutionary instincts make it so. If you were wired differently, it is totally okay. 

If both partners agree, what's the point of being married? Health insurance? 

Edited by stahleyp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...