Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou are not right in the head if you cannot answer this yourself.
Why would you fight to the death to protect my kids from abuse if you don't believe that the abuse of kids is objectively wrong?
19 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59We all know that abuse of kids is wrong, to deny this means that you are not right in the head. Yet by saying morality is subjective you would have to agree that for there are certain conditions whereby abuse of kids is ok.
You are not right in the head if you cannot answer this yourself.
19 Oct 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou pick all these emotive examples, like torturing babies for fun etc, as you know most people wont want to play devil's advocate in such a scenario, to explain how morality is subjective. - I find this a very cowardly tactic.
We all know that abuse of kids is wrong, to deny this means that you are not right in the head. Yet by saying morality is subjective you would have to agree that for there are certain conditions whereby abuse of kids is ok.
Let us just take an example where it isn't so emotive to play devil's advocate. Let's consider, in general terms, if murder is always wrong. (Without focusing on babies or cute little kittens). Is murder always morally wrong?.....Yes,........You absolutely sure about that?
What if the murder of one individual was the only way to save the lives of millions of people? Is your morality on this issue just as absolute?
19 Oct 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerLay off the booze or brush up on grammar and/or logic
We all know that abuse of kids is wrong, to deny this means that you are not right in the head. Yet by saying morality is subjective you would have to agree that for there are certain conditions whereby abuse of kids is ok.
because you are sounding more and more idiotic.
Why is asserting "morality is subjective" and agreeing
"abuse of kids is ok" mutually exclusive?
And are there not may abuses of kids in the bible?
19 Oct 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI think a case can be made for it from a Biblical perspective, Jesus died to save millions.
You pick all these emotive examples, like torturing babies for fun etc, as you know most people wont want to play devil's advocate in such a scenario, to explain how morality is subjective. - I find this a very cowardly tactic.
Let us just take an example where it isn't so emotive to play devil's advocate. Let's consider, in general terms, if mur ...[text shortened]... ly way to save the lives of millions of people? Is your morality on this issue just as absolute?
19 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Objective moral standards mean that some actions are always immoral no matter the circumstances. If morality is subjective it means there are circumstances where abuse of kids is ok, else it would always be immoral to abuse kids regardless of the circumstances. Where does the Bible say that the abuse of kids is good?
Lay off the booze or brush up on grammar and/or logic
because you are sounding more and more idiotic.
Why is asserting "morality is subjective" and agreeing
"abuse of kids is ok" mutually exclusive?
And are there not may abuses of kids in the bible?
19 Oct 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerIt is all about boundaries. We have to breathe, and if you choke our air out, expect resistance. This is not rocket surgery. You care about yourself? your family? your friends? your neighbors? your country your world your galaxy? And now you know what makes your impulse right. You do.
You feel impulse. Cool. So what makes your impulse right and someone else's contradictory impulse wrong?
So what do you stand up for, becker?
19 Oct 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerjob
Objective moral standards mean that some actions are always immoral no matter the circumstances. If morality is subjective it means there are circumstances where abuse of kids is ok, else it would always be immoral to abuse kids regardless of the circumstances. Where does the Bible say that the abuse of kids is good?
Originally posted by @apathistConviction. What does it mean to you?
It is all about boundaries. We have to breathe, and if you choke our air out, expect resistance. This is not rocket surgery. You care about yourself? your family? your friends? your neighbors? your country your world your galaxy? And now you know what makes your impulse right. You do.
So what do you stand up for, becker?
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerRamblings.
Objective moral standards mean that some actions are always immoral no matter the circumstances. If morality is subjective it means there are circumstances where abuse of kids is ok, else it would always be immoral to abuse kids regardless of the circumstances. Where does the Bible say that the abuse of kids is good?
Post your position then defend it.
Instead of these stupid sermons.
btw: Where does the bible say that the abuse of kids is bad?
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang592 Kings 2:23-25.
Ramblings.
Post your position then defend it.
Instead of these stupid sermons.
btw: Where does the bible say that the abuse of kids is bad?
No, wait,....that's where God sent two bears to kill 42 lads.
Originally posted by @dj2becker"Where does the Bible say that the abuse of kids is good"
Objective moral standards mean that some actions are always immoral no matter the circumstances. If morality is subjective it means there are circumstances where abuse of kids is ok, else it would always be immoral to abuse kids regardless of the circumstances. Where does the Bible say that the abuse of kids is good?
That bit where he says they should be smashed against the rocks.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Try to read up a little before you make unsubstantiated claims.
Ramblings.
Post your position then defend it.
Instead of these stupid sermons.
btw: Where does the bible say that the abuse of kids is bad?
https://www.gotquestions.org/child-abuse.html
21 Oct 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukehttps://www.gotquestions.org/Elisha-baldhead.html
2 Kings 2:23-25.
No, wait,....that's where God sent two bears to kill 42 lads.