And he taught his flock to multiply and he divided the Red Sea.
Learn about cleaning and starting all over again too.
If they don't give you what you want, you can ask the big man to turn their water red [poison them], bring in pests to eat their crop [famine them], kill their children; give them diseases.
If all that fail, fire and fury. Or flood them all and start all over again.
You've quoted a whole bunch of parables. I'm betting you already know that but you're playing games. There is some hard-line stuff in the NT though, I wont deny, but that's about Hell and Judgement. I won't say that aspect is peaceful , but it has nothing to do with the morals He taught.There are even New Testament verse ISIS could use to justify their killing.
In Luke 19:27 Jesus says - "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"
Now its part of a story Jesus is telling, but the moral of the story isn't that doing that would be wrong, he is tells the story in a way that it sounds like he thinks the action was justified, he doesn't say its immoral.
Of course any Modern Christian that wants to think Jesus only says and does nice things will explain it away some how, but I can't help but think the various popes over the years would have used such verse's to justify the various crusades, inquisitions and the killing of heathens, jews and pagans etc.
They should make a movie about it.
I haven't condemned secular morality as you are confusing the absolutist position of religious ordained morality with the worked out positions of secular morality. I don't agree with that particular issue and I also don't hold that late term abortions for pure convenience are accepted by all or even a majority of secularists as moral either. Some maybe, but they would tend to be on the feminist fringe who aren't necessarily in accordance with mainstream opinion. The important thing is that these issues are open for discussion and people make their decisions on facts or issues that may be important to them. Someone forced to carry an unwanted baby is not going to view that issue the same way as a male and though I disagree with them, I am not going to condemn them as I haven't walked in their shoes.
Wrong again. I do not agree that it is better, even in respect to late term abortions, as the church's position is to let the mother die if there are complications and only one can be saved.
The rest of what you wrote is rubbish.
I'm getting the same pattern here: ask me questions, I give answers, poster can't respond so puts it down to being a load of rubbish. Your views won't be considered worthy by people if you use this approach all the time. Especially when you ask the same questions over and over, get an answer, and never respond.
Is this not what secular morality is about? It's a sloppy morality where one has the flexibility to do things they think are morally wrong.
The reason is that religious folk cling to absolute rules.
Answers are not questions, so do not need a response. However, I have given my opinion of your answers several times. I see them as you just being hypocritical in your morality by trying to justify immorality as being OK.
And what you said in that last paragraph is a load of rubbish. Let me remind you.. I used the word abortion , yes, to describe the aborting of infants that are already out of the womb. In other words, destroying human life for some perceived good cause. In any case, even if I don't use the word abortion, the example still holds for my argument.
Clear up you thinking first
Of course people can do things they think are morally wrong. They are called immoral acts. But on some issues, what one person may think is immoral, another may hold a different view. This is not sloppiness but a reflection on how our morality evolves.
If you think Christian morality is different in that respect then you are clearly unaware of how Christian morality has changed over the years.
I need to clean up my understanding, really? As a pro-lifer it's funny getting that from someone who is okay with killing unborn babies. Normally when the debater brings up abortion for this argument, your side goes quite, but not you.
Let me guess, it's all good so long as it's in the womb? I'm literally laughing right now, the way you're making me out to be warped or evil, it's quite funny. Thank you for that.
I said clear up your thinking not clean up your understanding. The sentence I highlighted was rubbish and non-sensical.
You don't have to guess. I already stated my position on abortion and I didn't say it's all good so long as it is in the womb.
I also didn't say you were warped and evil. I said you were hypocritical.
If you want to argue what I said, at least get what I said right.
You've quoted a whole bunch of parables. ..
Is there a military rule about not torturing terrorists for information ?
What is your view on that ?
Yes, bellenuit, just look at Melbourne how much it has changed with secular morality.
It seems that religious and welfare bodies agreed that the solution to illegitimate babies was adoption by a married woman who was “fit” to mother. From the 1950s to the 1970s, these organisations established homes across Australian to support and protect young, single pregnant women. But many of these women now have revealed the suffering they experienced at the hands of these institutions.
In many cases, the signed legal paperwork appears to show the birth mother’s consent for adoption. However, it’s common for women whose children were lost to them through closed adoptions between the 1940s and 1980s to recount traumatic stories of immense emotional pressure and coercion to sign.
Birth mothers were silenced when it came to speaking out about their hidden pregnancies, their treatment during the birth – which was frightening and traumatic – and their grief after losing their child. Their pain was seen as punishment for their immorality because of falling pregnant
Gotta excuse and forgive VC. He was brought up, I'm guessing, by religious people and they all creep him out. That and he knows way too much about religion and its texts it's a miracle he still talk to people who holds the words of the Bible to be factual.
If the order was reversed so scientific evidence came before the bible then the bible would not have been constructed. The bible dedicates are still holding onto something people knew nothing about thousands of years ago. So unbelievable.
I quoted a story that was told by Jesus, I said it was a story bringing told by Jesus in my post.
But as I said in my post the moral of the story doesn't seen to be that it was bad, it seemed Jesus supported it.
What is your take on that parable?, do you think Jesus is saying it was wrong or right?
And if you want to talk about scriptures or the OT for that matter (to actually talk about something worthwhile for a change), you gotta deal with the fact that the history of several empires was accurately foretold by Daniel. I like the way my Bible has these little footnotes written in it , referring to Alexander the Great and Antiochus (b4 they ever existed). I hear that's a throwback for you atheists...I quoted a story that was told by Jesus, I said it was a story bringing told by Jesus in my post.
But as I said in my post the moral of the story doesn't seen to be that it was bad, it seemed Jesus supported it.
What is your take on that parable?, do you think Jesus is saying it was wrong or right?
Common man, it's a parable!
And if you want to talk about scriptures or the OT for that matter (to actually talk about something worthwhile for a change),
you gotta deal with the fact that the history of several empires was accurately foretold by Daniel.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?