Woke churches don't follow the bible on homosexual relations.

[SweetSue92]

Humanity?

It seems none of those things you think are morally reprehensible has done much to harm humanity. 7 billion and counting alive today.

You really haven't proven that morality is not relative. I can give you plenty of examples to show that it is.

Color preference is relative. There is no one color "superior" to another and all colors are represented as "favorites".

Morality is not. There are exceptions and outliers, sure. That does not negate objectivity.

 

[Blues Man]

Color preference is relative. There is no one color "superior" to another and all colors are represented as "favorites".

Morality is not. There are exceptions and outliers, sure. That does not negate objectivity.

Of course it does.

Society decides what behaviors are acceptable or not and those behaviors change as societies change.

The list of things we find repugnant today are things that were accepted at some time in history.

Hell we can't even decide if killing is morally wrong or not to this very day.

 

[SweetSue92]

Of course it does.

Society decides what behaviors are acceptable or not and those behaviors change as societies change.

The list of things we find repugnant today are things that were accepted at some time in history.

Hell we can't even decide if killing is morally wrong or not to this very day.

No. Compare and contrast with color preference. There is not, and never has been, a color that is objectively the best color.

This is not true for morality. Even in your last example. Killing another human is understood to be wrong in the way that "blue is the best color" is not. We have exceptions and caveats to "killing another human is wrong"--such as in self-defense or as punishment--but again that does not prove relativity. We can't even make a statement like 'Blue is the best color' because such a statement is nonsense and we recognize it, at least when stated objectively.

If morals were truly objective, humans saying "killing is wrong" would be equally ridiculous.

 

[rightnow909]

So, in 1 Corinthians it seems homosexuals are as bad as the greedy, adulterers (how ironic Mr Trump), the "sexually immoral", whatever that means, thieves, drunkards, slanderers (more irony) or swindlers.

Republicans, the party of greed, telling everyone how bad gay people are.... oh my.

"Thou shall not kill"

" they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Uh oh.... contradictions.

Thou shalt not murder

capital punishment (done as God commands in the OT) is not murder

 

[frigidweirdo]

Thou shalt not murder

capital punishment (done as God commands in the OT) is not murder

Well, firstly there's Genesis 9:6

"Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind."

Secondly there are different versions of the Bible.

Exodus 20 | DRC1752 Bible | YouVersion

And the Lord spoke all these words: I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to

www.bible.com

Douay-Rheims Challoner revision 1752

"13 Thou shalt not kill."

Exodus 20 | DARBY Bible | YouVersion

And God#GodHebrew: Elohim spoke all these words, saying, I am Jehovah thy God#GodHebrew: Elohim who have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other go

www.bible.com

Darby's Translation 1890

"13 Thou shalt not kill."

Seems like it's more modern books that have decided that "thou shalt not kill" is a little inconvenient. They like killing. Killing animals. Killing criminals etc.

But then that's the problem with the Bible isn't it. Parts of it say one thing, other parts say something else and people pick and choose whatever's convenient for them.

 

[rightnow909]

Well, firstly there's Genesis 9:6

"Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind."

Secondly there are different versions of the Bible.

Exodus 20 | DRC1752 Bible | YouVersion

And the Lord spoke all these words: I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to

www.bible.com

Douay-Rheims Challoner revision 1752

"13 Thou shalt not kill."

Exodus 20 | DARBY Bible | YouVersion

And God#GodHebrew: Elohim spoke all these words, saying, I am Jehovah thy God#GodHebrew: Elohim who have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other go

www.bible.com

Darby's Translation 1890

"13 Thou shalt not kill."

Seems like it's more modern books that have decided that "thou shalt not kill" is a little inconvenient. They like killing. Killing animals. Killing criminals etc.

But then that's the problem with the Bible isn't it. Parts of it say one thing, other parts say something else and people pick and choose whatever's convenient for them.

Thiss is why Jesus founded a Church, which sorts these things out for us..

Did Jesus not know we would be confused by the wiles of mere human creatures?

God knows everything.

 

[JohnDB]

1John 3:9
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

 

[rightnow909]

1John 3:9
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

that is a reference to mortal sin but we are sinners all our lives..

He who says he is without sin is a liar and the truth is not in him

 

[Zincwarrior]

Those who have divorced technically should be looked down upon as well.

People who eat pizza and drink milk.

 

[JohnDB]

that is a reference to mortal sin but we are sinners all our lives..

He who says he is without sin is a liar and the truth is not in him

Then why did John say this?
It's not just idle words. It was extremely expensive to write anything...so John must have thought it important.

The verse you posted is about always having been perfect....only Jesus was and they killed him for it.

 

[metalwolf]

Add to the list wealthy individuals. They cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Yet that's who you vote for.

Yup.

The bible says that rich people are a sin.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 6:24 - English Standard Version

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: James 5:1-6 - English Standard Version

Warning to the Rich - Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up...

www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: 2 Corinthians 8:9 - English Standard Version

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Bezukhov]

Faggots are gonna roast in the fires of Hell for eternity.

Does seeing faggots roasting in Hell get Jesus aroused? Excited? Randy? You know what I mean.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Thiss is why Jesus founded a Church, which sorts these things out for us..

Did Jesus not know we would be confused by the wiles of mere human creatures?

God knows everything.

Does it? Jesus said what?

Mark 12:31​

The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

And do all these Christians that pound on gay people follow this one? FUCK NO.

 

[Blues Man]

No. Compare and contrast with color preference. There is not, and never has been, a color that is objectively the best color.

This is not true for morality. Even in your last example. Killing another human is understood to be wrong in the way that "blue is the best color" is not. We have exceptions and caveats to "killing another human is wrong"--such as in self-defense or as punishment--but again that does not prove relativity. We can't even make a statement like 'Blue is the best color' because such a statement is nonsense and we recognize it, at least when stated objectively.

If morals were truly objective, humans saying "killing is wrong" would be equally ridiculous.

There is no comparison between behaviors and colors.

We as a society decide which behaviors are acceptable. Those acceptable behaviors change as societies change.

And I never said morals were objective I said morals are relative and therefore subjective.

And even those caveats on killing are relative.

It's OK for the government to kill for punishment but not OK for you to kill a person as punishment

It's OK for the government to put a gun in your hand and tell you to murder people in a foreign country but not OK for you to do that same thing as an individual.

There are not caveats they are justifications and all justifications are relative

 

[SweetSue92]

Yup.

The bible says that rich people are a sin.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 6:24 - English Standard Version

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: James 5:1-6 - English Standard Version

Warning to the Rich - Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up...

www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: 2 Corinthians 8:9 - English Standard Version

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.

www.biblegateway.com

King Solomon was a sin? Huh

 

[SweetSue92]

There is no comparison between behaviors and colors.

We as a society decide which behaviors are acceptable. Those acceptable behaviors change as societies change.

And I never said morals were objective I said morals are relative and therefore subjective.

And even those caveats on killing are relative.

It's OK for the government to kill for punishment but not OK for you to kill a person as punishment

It's OK for the government to put a gun in your hand and tell you to murder people in a foreign country but not OK for you to do that same thing as an individual.

There are not caveats they are justifications and all justifications are relative

The opposite of subjective is objective. It's either a matter of preference or it is not.

Colors are a matter of human preference.

Morals are not.

I hate to waste your limited time arguing this.

 

[Blues Man]

The opposite of subjective is objective. It's either a matter of preference or it is not.

Colors are a matter of human preference.

Morals are not.

I hate to waste your limited time arguing this.

You have no more time than anyone else.

And there are no objective morals. Morals are ideas invented by men. Morals change therefore there is no universal morality.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

Does seeing faggots roasting in Hell get Jesus aroused? Excited? Randy? You know what I mean.

Not sure...but if you keep mocking him you might get to see alongside them.

 

[SweetSue92]

You have no more time than anyone else.

And there are no objective morals. Morals are ideas invented by men. Morals change therefore there is no universal morality.

Morals change?

Back in time it was okay to kill your children, cook and eat them? No justification, remember, because it was acceptable.

Back in time it was okay to steal?

Back in time it was okay to lie to your loved ones?

You are making a flawed argument. You are saying because some things have been more or less acceptable in some societies over time, there are NO moral objective standards.

In truth you just really need there to be no moral objective standards.

 

[Blues Man]

Morals change?

Back in time it was okay to kill your children, cook and eat them? No justification, remember, because it was acceptable.

Back in time it was okay to steal?

Back in time it was okay to lie to your loved ones?

You are making a flawed argument. You are saying because some things have been more or less acceptable in some societies over time, there are NO moral objective standards.

In truth you just really need there to be no moral objective standards.

People are usually loathe to kill their own children because of evolutionary reasons not moral reasons.

And there are too many societies to count that had no qualms about killing children.

US soldiers used to stomp in the skulls of Native American babies so as not to waste a bullet.

And are you really so naive that you don't understate that lying is as much a human behavior as breathing?

We accept lying at all levels of society. We all lie every single day. And do you really think that in socieites where women were little more than chattel that lying to your wife was considered immoral?

That last sentence is ridiculous. There have always been morals as defined by society and there always will be. The only thing that is a fact is that those morals will change.

There actually might be a time when the earth is so overcrowded and we are warring over resources that population control will need to be implemented and it will be commandeered immoral to have more than 1 child.