Burden of proof

[SkepticThinker]

Jewish history records a number of Torah punishments that were never carried out at anytime.

Why do you keep making the same irrelevant point that I've already addressed over and over?

Per my understanding, if there's a Bible Law that says "atheists should be stoned" that is a warning to atheists even if none die of stoning.

Oh, now it's just a warning? God didn't really mean atheists should be stoned? What "he" really meant was just "atheists are bad, they are warned" ... ? Now your God speaks in riddles and doesn't actually mean what "he" says?

My other point was the greater good may mean abrogating a law. Jesus broke Torah Law!

If absolute morals are dictated to us from God, then how would we know when it's cool to break one of those morals?[/QUOTE]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, rigid application of almost any law could lead to issues--I'm glad you can understand nuances, and that I can understand them also.

So then you're guided by moral principles that you hold higher than "God's Law," and which you can use to judge "God's Law." Interesting.

Mostly God's Law is ultimate/absolute good--but JESUS CHRIST broke the Law when making certain points. HE is ultimate good!

Yes: if the Bible is to be believed, Jesus was often motivated by love and charity rather than strict adherence to the law.

Now apply the same lens to your own life... for instance, the hateful and uncharitable stance you take toward LGBTQ people.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yeah, that is your belief. I believe differently about God and Jesus Christ.

Torah--cannot gather grain on Shabbat, cannot carry a burden on Shabbat, etc. "Have you never even read what David did, when he took and ate the Tabernacle's showbread?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Okay so morals are absolute, except when they're not? Is that it?

That's not surprising to me, as a situational ethicist, but it doesn't do much for your "absolute" position, does it?

A number of intangible absolutes exist--you accept them a priori, for example, "Billiards Ball is wrong in this debate" assumes "wrong" exists, "truth" exists, etc.

You believe absolutes in metaphysics but no Creator can possibly exist--adding to this that you know about potential alternate dimensions, multiverses and higher alien orders. You don't think it's possible for humans to break a natural law for example create antigravity someday and etc.?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do you keep making the same irrelevant point that I've already addressed over and over?


Oh, now it's just a warning? God didn't really mean atheists should be stoned? What "he" really meant was just "atheists are bad, they are warned" ... ? Now your God speaks in riddles and doesn't actually mean what "he" says?



If absolute morals are dictated to us from God, then how would we know when it's cool to break one of those morals?

[/QUOTE]

Some homosexuals (and some straights and etc.) are going to Heaven, some to Hell. The Bible is full of warnings.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So then you're guided by moral principles that you hold higher than "God's Law," and which you can use to judge "God's Law." Interesting.


Yes: if the Bible is to be believed, Jesus was often motivated by love and charity rather than strict adherence to the law.

Now apply the same lens to your own life... for instance, the hateful and uncharitable stance you take toward LGBTQ people.

I can clarify--greater principles like "love your neighbor" trump other principles like "don't work on Shabbat", as Jesus demonstrated doing both Shabbos healings and reproving the Pharisees while doing so.

I think love your neighbor trumps OT law in this regard for homosexuals. But it is neither hateful nor uncharitable to warn against/help people away from self-hurt, pain and self-destructive behaviors.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can clarify--greater principles like "love your neighbor" trump other principles like "don't work on Shabbat", as Jesus demonstrated doing both Shabbos healings and reproving the Pharisees while doing so.

How did you decide that "love your neighbour" - an idea not even in the Ten Commandments - is more important than "don't work on Shabbat" - which is in the Ten Commandments?

Again, you seem to be implying that you're guided by moral principles that you consider higher than "God's Law," which you use to judge "God's Law."

I think love your neighbor trumps OT law in this regard for homosexuals. But it is neither hateful nor uncharitable to warn against/help people away from self-hurt, pain and self-destructive behaviors.

Is that how you try to rationalize your hateful and uncharitable behaviour?

 

[BilliardsBall]

How did you decide that "love your neighbour" - an idea not even in the Ten Commandments - is more important than "don't work on Shabbat" - which is in the Ten Commandments?

Again, you seem to be implying that you're guided by moral principles that you consider higher than "God's Law," which you use to judge "God's Law."


Is that how you try to rationalize your hateful and uncharitable behaviour?

Jesus Christ in multiple instances demonstrated that love of neighbor trumped Mosaic Law. Do you agree or disagree with Jesus on this point?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jesus Christ in multiple instances demonstrated that love of neighbor trumped Mosaic Law. Do you agree or disagree with Jesus on this point?

I think that Mosaic Law should be thrown out altogether.

But I do think it's interesting that you think that following "God's Law" is sometimes inconsistent with acting out of love. How do you think that God got that so wrong?

 

[SkepticThinker]

A number of intangible absolutes exist--you accept them a priori, for example, "Billiards Ball is wrong in this debate" assumes "wrong" exists, "truth" exists, etc.

You believe absolutes in metaphysics but no Creator can possibly exist--adding to this that you know about potential alternate dimensions, multiverses and higher alien orders. You don't think it's possible for humans to break a natural law for example create antigravity someday and etc.?

This does nothing to address my question. You're just trying to tell me what you think I believe (i.e. put words in my mouth), and inaccurately so. Please don't do that.
I've never said, nor implied that "no creator can possibly exist." Never have I said I "know" about potential alternate dimensions, etc. I also haven't assumed "a priori" that "Billiard Balls is wrong in this debate."

Instead of doing this, it would be great if you'd answer my question, and speak to my point, in this discussion:

"Okay so morals are absolute, except when they're not? Is that it?
That's not surprising to me, as a situational ethicist, but it doesn't do much for your "absolute" position, does it?"

You say absolute morality exists and comes from the God you worship. Then you turn around and explain how morality is relative. You can't have it both ways.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Some homosexuals (and some straights and etc.) are going to Heaven, some to Hell. The Bible is full of warnings.

The Bible also tells you to kill homosexuals, which of course, is what we were talking about.
I see why you've attempted to change the subject though.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can clarify--greater principles like "love your neighbor" trump other principles like "don't work on Shabbat", as Jesus demonstrated doing both Shabbos healings and reproving the Pharisees while doing so.

I think love your neighbor trumps OT law in this regard for homosexuals. But it is neither hateful nor uncharitable to warn against/help people away from self-hurt, pain and self-destructive behaviors.

So you assume gay people are hurting themselves and engaging in self-destructive behaviors, like, in general?
What makes you think that, aside from admonishments against them made by bronze age human beings? Or is it just based on that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Bible also tells you to kill homosexuals, which of course, is what we were talking about.
I see why you've attempted to change the subject though.

I know you mean that jokingly, but @BilliardsBall has made it clear that he's giving the whole "killing homosexuals" thing his best effort.

Not by pulling the trigger himself, of course, but he's described how he leads programs at his church that are very likely to drive gay people to suicide.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know you mean that jokingly, but @BilliardsBall has made it clear that he's giving the whole "killing homosexuals" thing his best effort.

Not by pulling the trigger himself, of course, but he's described how he leads programs at his church that are very likely to drive gay people to suicide.

Yeah, that's disgusting. And incredibly harmful.
BB seems to think that just being gay all by itself is self-destructive and harmful while advocating for "programs" that are incredibly harmful to people. Because some old book says so.

 

[Sheldon]

Jesus Christ in multiple instances demonstrated that love of neighbor trumped Mosaic Law. Do you agree or disagree with Jesus on this point?

There is no way to substantiate Jesus said anything at all. It is all hearsay.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think that Mosaic Law should be thrown out altogether.

But I do think it's interesting that you think that following "God's Law" is sometimes inconsistent with acting out of love. How do you think that God got that so wrong?

Right 99.99% of the time is not "so wrong".

 

[BilliardsBall]

I know you mean that jokingly, but @BilliardsBall has made it clear that he's giving the whole "killing homosexuals" thing his best effort.

Not by pulling the trigger himself, of course, but he's described how he leads programs at his church that are very likely to drive gay people to suicide.

Rather the counseling we do has helped people find peace and joy. Yet another area in which you want to throw stones but don't want to discuss things offline. Let's discuss this as friends offline so we can clear away your misconceptions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This does nothing to address my question. You're just trying to tell me what you think I believe (i.e. put words in my mouth), and inaccurately so. Please don't do that.
I've never said, nor implied that "no creator can possibly exist." Never have I said I "know" about potential alternate dimensions, etc. I also haven't assumed "a priori" that "Billiard Balls is wrong in this debate."

Instead of doing this, it would be great if you'd answer my question, and speak to my point, in this discussion:

"Okay so morals are absolute, except when they're not? Is that it?
That's not surprising to me, as a situational ethicist, but it doesn't do much for your "absolute" position, does it?"

You say absolute morality exists and comes from the God you worship. Then you turn around and explain how morality is relative. You can't have it both ways.

Morals cover thousands of human interactions. Some of the responses are absolute in nature, some are grey areas. Why is this difficult for you?

Homosexuals have issues that IMHO Jesus can fix. God loves us and is kind. A lot of the Mosaic Law, however, causes people attuned to God to reverence/beware and skeptics to foam.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Rather the counseling we do has helped people find peace and joy. Yet another area in which you want to throw stones but don't want to discuss things offline. Let's discuss this as friends offline so we can clear away your misconceptions.

Studies show that such "counseling" is harmful to people and doesn't help "people find peace and joy."

What does the scholarly research say about whether conversion therapy can alter sexual orientation without causing harm? | What We Know
Statement of the Independent Forensic Expert Group on Conversion Therapy - PubMed
Prevalence of Exposure to Sexual Orientation Change Efforts and Associated Sociodemographic Characteristics and Psychosocial Health Outcomes among Canadian Sexual Minority Men - PubMed
The Lies and Dangers of "Conversion Therapy"

Canada, Brazil, Germany, Chile, Albania, New Zealand, Mexico and Ecuador have banned, or are in the process of banning "gay conversion therapy" because it's harmful and has been discredited.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right 99.99% of the time is not "so wrong".

You think Mosaic Law is right 99.99% of the time?

And 99.99% still is 0.01% imperfect. How imperfect do you consider God to be?